Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Foot and Mouth

Julian Lewis: If she will make a statement on the impact of foot and mouth on tourism in Scotland.

Alan Beith: What steps she has taken to facilitate cross-border co-operation over the handling of the foot and mouth crisis.

George Foulkes: The impact of the foot and mouth outbreak has been severe in Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. There has, however, been active cross-border co-operation. The Scottish Executive have worked well with Whitehall Departments on both policy and operational aspects. All agencies, including the Scotland Office, have co-operated in getting across the message that Scotland is open for business.

Julian Lewis: I am reassured by that response from the Secretary of State, but has he found in Scotland, as we have in the New Forest, that one effect of the crisis has been that many tourist centres and businesses that have never been closed have been shunned by people wrongly thinking that they were closed? Will he do everything in his power to advertise the fact that tourist centres in Scotland are not closed, in many cases never have been closed, and should be visited at every opportunity? The tourism industry—certainly in the New Forest, where foot and mouth did not even break out, and, I am sure, in Scotland—has been desperately hard hit.

George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is right about everything except one point: I am only the Minister of State, not yet the Secretary of State.
	The Secretary of State and I have been very active in promoting the fact that Scotland is open for business. My right hon. Friend went to the Trossachs, Loch Lomond and Ben Nevis very soon after the crisis began, to illustrate the fact that they were open. I went to Stirling castle and Stirling jail—[Interruption.] The old jail. I went to Culzean country park, and spoke to journalists in Brussels—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] That was my only overseas visit, apart from going to the Western Isles. I also met overseas journalists who came to Loch Lomond and other parts of Scotland. The Secretary of State and I, along with our colleagues in the Scottish Executive, will do everything that we can to get over the message that Scotland, like other parts of the UK, is very much open for business and welcomes tourists, wherever they come from.

Alan Beith: Is the Minister aware that, whereas during earlier stages of the outbreak the Scottish Executive, as well as handling the crisis rather better than those in England did, were helpful to those of us who had to deal with problems on the English side of the border going into Scotland, there is now a limit on cross-border movements, so that farmers who have cattle in equivalent condition and want to send them to the abattoir in Ayr or Bathgate cannot do so, even though the limit seems to have no scientific basis? Will he arrange for civil servants of the two Administrations to talk to each other more, so that they can discuss the matter?

George Foulkes: The civil servants of the two Administrations are in very close touch, on that and other matters. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to meet Rhona Brankin, the Minister responsible for such matters in the Scottish Executive, so there will be discussions at ministerial level later this afternoon. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take on board the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

Russell Brown: Will my hon. Friend listen sympathetically to the concerns of many hill sheep farmers whose markets have been closed off and closed down as a direct result of restrictions on animal movements designed to combat foot and mouth? Will he undertake to discuss with colleagues appropriate compensation arrangements?

George Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right; we are certainly taking that on board. There is a huge problem with 3.5 million hill lambs, which must be dealt with in one way or another, because they will suffer if left on the hills during the winter. They can be slaughtered and go into cold storage, and farmers can receive compensation. Alternatively, we could eat more lamb. We are considering all the options. I attended an ad hoc meeting on the matter on Wednesday, and the Secretary of State is attending another later this afternoon. We are treating it as a matter of great urgency.
	I know that some regard suggestions such as that we should eat more lamb as a bit of a joke, but this is a serious matter. Eating more lamb would certainly help to solve the problem and reduce the amount of compensation that we would have to pay.

Tony Worthington: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the approval in Europe of a procedure called alkaline hydrolysis at elevated temperature—he does not need to remember all that—which would get rid of the need for mass burial and rendering? A firm in my constituency holds the licence for such a procedure, which would have obviated many of the problems of foot and mouth, and dealt with BSE, too. Does my hon. Friend welcome the tremendous opportunity for a major manufacturing facility in Scotland to deal with such crises?

George Foulkes: My hon. Friend has made that suggestion before, and it is one that we should take on board. I can assure him that there have been no new cases of foot and mouth in Scotland since 30 May. That is no cause for complacency, but things seem to be improving significantly. Cleaning and disinfecting of farms is well under way: we have already done more than half the infected farms in Scotland. The farms involved were in a small area around Dumfries and in parts of Galloway and the borders—the rest of Scotland was not affected. We have been trying to broadcast that message as widely as possible.

Single Currency

David Cameron: If she will make a statement about the involvement of the Scotland Office in preparing Government and businesses for the introduction of the euro.

Helen Liddell: I meet my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss that and a wide range of issues. In addition, I liaise closely with colleagues in the Scottish Executive who take forward euro preparations through the Scottish Euro Forum.

David Cameron: Will the right hon. Lady be making a separate assessment of the Scottish economy in relation to the five economic tests? If so, how, when and where will it be published? If not, why not?

Helen Liddell: I will not be making a separate Scottish assessment.

John McFall: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that businesses be aware of the euro and make preparations? The scotch whisky industry is a highly successful industry, achieving more than £2 billion of sales and securing more than 50,000 jobs. Would we not be hiding our heads if we failed to act responsibly and did not open up channels with such businesses?

Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The introduction of notes and coins at the turn of this year will be important to Scottish business. My hon. Friend mentions the scotch whisky industry in particular, but 63 per cent. of Scotland's exports overall go to our European partners, and if businesses do not prepare for the introduction of the euro, opportunities will missed. The Department of Trade and Industry and other Government Departments have been actively encouraging businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to prepare for the introduction of the euro. Many think that that is simply a matter of implementing new systems, but the fact is that when 12 of the EU's member states are using the euro, price transparency and the competitiveness of Scottish business will be thrown into sharp relief.

Alex Salmond: In the context of the Government's preparations for the introduction of the euro, will the Secretary of State estimate—to the nearest 10,000, say—how many fewer manufacturing jobs there are in Scotland now than when the Labour party took office in 1997? How many of the job losses does she attribute to the overvaluation of sterling against the euro, and how many to other Government policies?

Helen Liddell: The hon. Gentleman displays the flawed economics that he displayed during the general election campaign—as a result of which there are now more Scots in the Cabinet than on the Scottish National party Benches here. Let me point out that during the election campaign, he and other members of his party made it clear that they would rather tie the Scottish currency in an independent Scotland to the pound or to the euro. One of the reasons why his party lost the election so decisively was the flawed economics that he and his colleagues displayed. The Labour Government's policies have resulted in the lowest unemployment in Scotland for 25 years, and more Scots in employment now than for a generation.

Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be utter madness for us to join the euro at the current rate of exchange? Does she agree that we require either a substantial devaluation of the pound or an appreciation of the euro before it would make sense even to consider joining? Is it not a fact that those who call for us to join the euro now, including those in the SNP, do not have Scottish industry's best interests at heart?

Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the assessment we must make of whether to recommend to the people in a referendum that we should join the single currency. A key element is to ensure sustainable convergence, which is why the position adopted by the Government—making the assessment according to five economic tests set by the Chancellor—is the logical way forward. We must be certain that every decision about the single currency is taken in the best economic interests not only of Scotland, but of the whole United Kingdom. That is why our policy of prepare and decide is the best possible one.

Michael Moore: Does the Secretary of State accept that Scottish farmers' businesses are being damaged by the continuing uncertainty about the euro? Given the Government's unwillingness to commit to a referendum on the single currency, will she at least give a commitment that full agrimonetary compensation will be paid to farmers this year? Will she explain what steps she is taking to ensure that there is a new scheme in place when the current one ends in 2002?

Helen Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is being misleading when he says that we will not commit to a referendum. We have made it clear that we will commit to a referendum. Indeed, the decision whether Britain should enter a single currency will be taken in the best interests of the Scottish, and British, economy. Far from the position of the Conservative party—later this afternoon, it will decide whether its leader will be someone who proposes that we should never enter a single currency, someone who proposes that perhaps we should enter a single currency, or someone who says, "Yes please, can we enter into a single currency right now?"—we shall make a decision based on the best prospects for the Scottish and the British economy.
	As for agrimonetary compensation, the Government have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that there is adequate foot and mouth compensation for farmers, not just in general but in specifics. More subsidy is paid to farmers in the United Kingdom than to all other sections of our industry put together, because the farming community requires that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a good full reply.

Iain Luke: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Europe is Scotland's largest export market, on which hundreds, indeed thousands, of jobs depend? Does not the sterile anti-euro stance of the Opposition puts those jobs in jeopardy?

Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend, from his considerable experience of such matters, makes an important point. What he says is accurate, and whenever we see the Opposition divided on the issue of Europe, we know that they do not have the interests of Scottish industry at heart, just as they do not have the interests of British industry at heart.

Dominic Grieve: I am sure that the right hon. Lady is familiar with the Chantrey Vellacott report, which says that the costs to the private sector in Scotland of joining the euro would be some £3 billion on a gross domestic product just in excess of £56 billion. No doubt she agrees that that is a substantial sum. Is it not the case that the longer the Government delay that decision, the higher those costs will be? That point has already been made to the right hon. Lady in a number of questions. If the Government are serious about the matter, is it not time that they came to a decision? Do they not risk incurring substantial costs for the Scottish economy which, at the end of the day, may have been wasted?

Helen Liddell: I wonder whether I am welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box in his role as spokesman for Scotland for the last time. We expected his hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) to be at the Dispatch Box today. Indeed, we look forward to the next Scottish Grand Committee, when the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale may be the Front-Bench spokesman who opens for the Opposition, then becomes their Back-Bench representative, before resuming his Front-Bench role to close the debate.
	As for the question asked by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the Government will decide whether to recommend joining a single currency in a referendum based on this country's best economic interests, not on some ideological dancing on the head of a pin—which, it seems, would be the Opposition's position. Our recommendation will be in the best interests of the people, and the decision will be made by them.

Dominic Grieve: I had rather hoped to move on to another topic, but I think that I shall return to my original question. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the £3 billion of estimated cost to the Scottish economy that would be incurred by joining the euro will be increased the longer the decision is delayed, and that the money could well turn out to be wasted? Will she please answer that question now, rather than giving me an interesting and diverse explanation of who will be sitting where in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Helen Liddell: The illogicality of the hon. Gentleman's question beggars belief. If the wrong decision is taken about the interests of the people of this country, it will cost the economy considerably more, which is why the Government's position of assessing the five critical economic tests is right.

Fuel Duties

Owen Paterson: What representations she has received about the effects of fuel duties in Scotland.

Helen Liddell: I have regular discussions with a number of interested parties on a wide range of issues affecting Scotland, one of which relates to fuel prices.

Owen Paterson: That was a bland answer, considering that 95 per cent. of goods in Scotland are transported by motorised truck. How many letters has the Secretary of State had from businesses whose competitiveness has been crushed by the pernicious fuel duties imposed by the Government? Can she name three businesses in Scotland that have been made more competitive by those fuel duties?

Helen Liddell: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have introduced a package of measures that is specifically friendly to motorists in Scotland. The measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget have led to cuts in fuel duty of 4p per litre for motorists and 7p a litre for hauliers. Those measures benefit every business in Scotland.

Calum MacDonald: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Office of Fair Trading is investigating the causes of the disproportionately high petrol prices in the Western Isles, which are not due to taxes or duties, because the same taxes and duties apply everywhere else in the United Kingdom. They are the result of a commercial interest. Will my right hon. Friend ascertain when the findings of the Office of Fair Trading inquiry will be published, and undertake to implement them?

Helen Liddell: I will certainly undertake to do that; my hon. Friend makes an important point. Having filled my tank on Saturday at a rural filling station in the highlands, I am well aware of the difficulties being experienced in the highlands and islands. My colleagues in the Scottish Executive have introduced the rural petrol stations grant scheme, which is intended specifically to assist filling stations in remote areas. I know that my hon. Friend welcomes that. I undertake to ensure that the findings of the survey of petrol prices will be published as early as possible.

Peter Duncan: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the direct threat to the economy of Wigtownshire? She will be aware that many hauliers and holidaymakers detour via the Irish sea crossing to southern Ireland en route to Northern Ireland rather than cross my constituency to Stranraer, because they can buy fuel at half price in southern Ireland, rather than paying the extortionate price of £4 per gallon in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale.

Helen Liddell: I take this opportunity to welcome the "Westminster one" to the Chamber. Let me not diminish the hon. Gentleman's considerable achievement in winning his seat. However, does his win not say something about the performance of the Scottish National party, which still managed to lose a seat on one of the worst nights for the Tories in a generation?
	What the hon. Gentleman says about the difficulties in Wigtownshire is something that I acknowledge, and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged when he introduced the new system of vehicle excise duty, especially the development of what is called the Brit disc. That is specifically designed to assist hauliers and give them access to fuel at a competitive rate that will allow them to carry out their business without a competitive disadvantage.

Michael Weir: Does the Secretary of State understand that the high price of fuel impacts on all aspects of the Scottish economy, especially in rural areas? Does she think that taking 75p in tax for each pound charged on petrol is too much, too little or just right? Is there a European Union country that takes more in tax on petrol than the United Kingdom? May we have a straight answer at least once this afternoon?

Helen Liddell: As the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, I feel that one should be understanding about the questions that he asks. However, if he checks the level of motoring taxation in Scotland with that in the rest of the EU, he will find that we sit in the middle. Opposition Members talk about fuel taxes, but they fail to take into account any consideration of the environment. Perhaps that explains why, with the exception of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), they have all been returned to this place with roughly 30 per cent. of the popular vote.

Michael Connarty: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that although when the barrel price of oil was $10 there was not a large fall in the price of petrol at the pump, now that the price is $25 a barrel, the companies are claiming that that is why their price cannot come down at the pump? Will my right hon. Friend enter into discussions with the companies about how much profit they are making from the international sale and retail of fuel? While she is at it, will she get them to explain why fuel is 3p a litre cheaper in her constituency than in mine?

Helen Liddell: I assume that my hon. Friend is a regular visitor to my constituency, given that his family comes from there. The Government do not become involved in companies' pricing decisions. However, I recognise my hon. Friend's point about prices at the pump when oil was $10 a barrel. As the Grangemouth refinery is in his constituency, he is well aware of the important impact on the Scottish economy of having a more sustainable oil price now. It is important to secure jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other constituencies throughout Scotland. The Government believe that competition, and competitive pressures on oil companies, are one sure way of reducing petrol prices, as we see with pricing in supermarket and hypermarket filling stations.

Eleanor Laing: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), who is very welcome indeed at Scottish questions, especially by my colleagues and me. The right hon. Lady has admitted that high petrol prices are causing a problem for rural businesses, farmers and other people in rural communities—especially in Scotland, by comparison with the rest of the country. As those prices result from taxation, not from the original pricing, will she undertake to make representations to the Chancellor before the next Budget to reduce, or at least hold steady, the current tax on fuel?

Helen Liddell: I take this opportunity not only to welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box—we did not expect to have her company today—but, on behalf of the whole House, to give a welcome to Matthew Wallace Laing, who is now five weeks old. We are delighted to see the hon. Lady here and looking so well. On her substantive point, the Government have recognised the difficulties of rural communities and others, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken action resulting in an average reduction of 4p a litre for petrol.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

European Court of Human Rights

Anne Begg: What Scottish cases are pending before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Lynda Clark: Of the current cases against the UK that have been notified to the UK to date, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has identified four as being of particular interest to a Scottish Executive lead Department. Those cases involve a number of issues about the application of article 6, which concerns the right to a fair trial, article 5, which concerns the right to liberty and security, and one case involving article 3, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.

Anne Begg: Is the Advocate-General involved in any of the cases, or does her involvement stops once a case gets to Strasbourg? Is she likely to be involved in such cases in future?

Lynda Clark: I am not currently involved in the four cases to which I referred, but some of them are still at a very early stage in the procedure before the European Court of Human Rights. Obviously, as a UK Law Officer, I am available, if requested, to give advice about such matters or to appear on behalf of the UK. I am certainly willing to do that in the European Court of Human Rights, as I have done in many of the other courts.

Subordinate Legislation

Annabelle Ewing: If she will make a statement on the application of schedule 7 3(1)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998.

Lynda Clark: Paragraph 3(1)(b) applies to numerous powers to make subordinate legislation under the Scotland Act 1998. It requires affirmative resolution procedure to be used where the subordinate legislation alters the text of an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Advocate-General for her answer, but I should like to pursue the matter a wee bit further. Will she confirm that a detailed reading of the Scotland Act shows that when reference is made to an Act of the Scottish Parliament, the term "Act of the Scottish Parliament" will be used? Similarly, will she assure us that when reference is made to an Act of the Westminster Parliament, the term "Act of the UK Parliament" will be used? Will she therefore confirm that if an annulment is sought for supposed elements of an Act of the Scottish Parliament that are ultra vires, the UK Government would be required to invoke the special case procedure set out in schedule 7 3(1)(b)?

Lynda Clark: Fortunately, I almost understand the hon. Lady's question. Basically, when an Act refers to an Act of the UK Parliament, that is exactly what it means. Similarly, when an Act refers to an Act of the Scottish Parliament, that is what it means. It depends entirely on the interpretation provided in the Scotland Act 1998 and the Interpretation Act 1978.

Euthanasia

Jimmy Wray: What recent advice she has given on legislation relating to euthanasia.

Lynda Clark: I give legal advice on a range of matters as and when required. The Government have no plans to introduce legislation relating to euthanasia. In Scotland the matter is devolved to the Scottish Executive, and I understand that they have no plans to introduce legislation relating to euthanasia, either.

Jimmy Wray: There is much confusion in Scotland with regard to euthanasia. Neither Ministers in Scotland nor the Cabinet Office at Westminster understand where responsibility lies. It is not dealt with, along with surrogacy and abortion, under the part of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act that covers health and medicines, so the rule of thumb is used, in case of biotourism. As the criminal law, including the law with regard to murder, is devolved, is not euthanasia, too, a devolved matter?

Lynda Clark: My hon. Friend is correct. The criminal law, including that with regard to murder, is devolved, and in certain circumstances the taking of human life will be murder—or it could be culpable homicide. Euthanasia, as defined by Scots law, is not acceptable and is contrary to law. That is a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Asylum Seekers

Ann Clwyd: What assessment she has made of the adequacy of legal representation available to asylum seekers.

Rosie Winterton: The Legal Services Commission and the community legal service partnerships continually monitor and assess the adequacy of legal service provision available to asylum seekers, including legal representation. We believe that there is now generally adequate provision throughout England and Wales, but will look to meet any local difficulties that may arise.

Ann Clwyd: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position, and wish her a long and happy life at the Dispatch Box. However, I have to disagree with what she has just said, because my experience in visiting Cardiff prison recently and talking to asylum seekers suggests that their legal representation is extremely inadequate. I had intended to ask the Department whether, as so many asylum seekers are being dispersed outside the London area, any progress had been made in building up a network of specialists in asylum law throughout the United Kingdom. Certainly asylum seekers in Cardiff prison are inadequately represented.

Rosie Winterton: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely concerned about the situation in Cardiff. I read the powerful points that she made in her recent Adjournment debate, and I agree that the Government must ensure that asylum seekers, wherever they are, have proper legal representation. We have taken on board her suggestion that there should be a network of advisers throughout the country. One of the recent improvements that we have made is to ensure that only legal advisers who are specialists in asylum law can give advice to asylum seekers. We have also increased the number of immigration practitioners throughout the UK, looking particularly at areas to which asylum seekers have been dispersed where there may not have been a tradition of such legal advice. There were particular problems in Cardiff prison, and a number of changes have been made following a visit from the Legal Services Commission—but if my hon. Friend believes that problems are still outstanding, she should write to me and I shall look into them myself.

Sydney Chapman: I, too, warmly welcome the Minister to her new post and wish her well.
	Bearing in mind the Government's policy of firmer, fairer and faster reception of asylum seekers, is it better that initially and temporarily, they should be held in prisons or reception centres?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome.
	Asylum seekers are held in prison only as a last resort. We believe that the changes that we have made will assist in speeding up the process.
	Putting people in detention centres as soon as they arrive, as the Conservative party suggests, is unworkable and unaffordable. However, we hope to lessen the number of those who are detained in prisons when other centres open later in the summer.

Immigration Appeals

Fiona Mactaggart: How he plans to deal with the backlog of immigration appeals; and if he will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: Immigration appeals have benefited from the significant resources that the Government have invested in improving the appeals process. Waiting times in the Immigration Appellate Authority have reduced considerably from more than 40 weeks at the end of March 2000 to less than 20 weeks at the same point this year.
	Officials from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the IAA and the Lord Chancellor's Department continue to work closely together to ensure that there are no undue delays in dealing with immigration appeals.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome her to her new post.
	I am pleased to hear the extent to which the processing of immigration appeals is being speeded up. However, the same cannot be said about asylum appeals. What progress is being made in dealing with the 65,000 asylum cases that are being moved into the appeals system?

Rosie Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. She is right that immigration and asylum appeals should be tackled as quickly as possible, and that immigration work should not suffer through increased asylum appeals. The latest assessment shows that in approximately 52,000 asylum cases, an appeal has been lodged with the IND, but they remain in the appeals system. In the past year, we have taken several steps to tackle that problem and ensure that asylum and immigration appeals move through the system quickly.
	First, we have increased the number of courtrooms. Secondly, we have more than doubled the number of asylum adjudicator sitting days. We have also increased the number of staff in the IND who prepare and present appeals, and the number of interpreters.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that those measures mean that average waiting times for asylum and immigration appeals have more than halved in the past year. However, I assure her that we shall continue to consider all options for tackling appeals quickly.

Human Rights Act

Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the future of magistrates courts.

Michael Wills: As the hon. Gentleman knows, implementation of the Act is at an early stage. It came into effect only in October last year. It would therefore be premature to draw any firm conclusions now. However, magistrates courts committees have provided data for the period between October 2000 to March 2001. That shows the Human Rights Act has had no significant impact on the work load of the courts or the infrastructure required.

Owen Paterson: I welcome the Minister to his new post, and I hope that he will not emulate the inept complacency of his predecessor, who flatly refused to take on board the imminent catastrophe that faced magistrates courts after Human Rights Act was passed. In Oswestry, £350,000 of taxpayers' money was spent on modernising the magistrates court over five years. Now, £197,450 will have to be spent to make it comply with the Human Rights Act, which deems it an infringement of human dignity to be seen in any public part of the court in handcuffs. Does the Minister agree that if central Government cause a problem, they should provide the funds to solve it?

Michael Wills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome. I am afraid that I have to disagree with almost everything else that he said. Briefly—

Owen Paterson: Tell me what is wrong, then.

Michael Wills: I will, if I may, tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what he said that was wrong. First, he was wrong about my distinguished predecessor, in whose footsteps I am very proud to follow. Secondly, there is no imminent catastrophe—

Owen Paterson: There is!

Michael Wills: If the hon. Gentleman really wants to be reassured—

Owen Paterson: Come to Shropshire.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) must calm down.

Michael Wills: Mr. Speaker, I am trying extremely hard to bring some comfort to the hon. Gentleman, but he is obviously determined to get over-excited about this. I accept his kind invitation: I would be delighted to come to Shropshire, because I would be able to explain to him in situ—he obviously does not want to listen to me here—that there is no imminent catastrophe as a result of the Human Rights Act. There is no evidence of such a catastrophe and, on the Labour Benches, we believe in proceeding on the basis of evidence.

John Burnett: I welcome both the new Ministers to their appointments and I congratulate the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), on her promotion. I would also like to pay tribute to the former Member for Wyre Forest, who was a conscientious and knowledgeable Minister.
	The Government commissioned Bristol university to produce a report entitled "The Judiciary in the Magistrates Courts", which was published in December last year. For what purpose did the Government commission that research? Do the Government have proposals for the lay magistracy and, if so, what are they?

Michael Wills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and for those—by contrast with those of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)—about my predecessors. He will be aware, with his distinguished background in the law, that we are awaiting publication of the Auld report. It would be premature to say too much until my colleagues and I have read it, as it may well have implications for the future of the lay magistracy. We have made it very clear, as has Lord Justice Auld, that we see a valuable role for the lay magistracy, and we expect that to continue.

Andrew Miller: I do not know what happened in Shropshire, but in the adjacent county of Cheshire there was a very welcome and sophisticated programme of training for magistrates before the introduction of the Human Rights Act. May I seek my hon. Friend's assurance that that training will also be available to newly appointed magistrates? It would take additional time and resources, and would need to be like that provided for existing magistrates.

Michael Wills: My hon. Friend is quite right—he so often is. The catastrophe that the hon. Member for North Shropshire is so keen to predict has been avoided because we have prepared extremely carefully and made sure that everyone involved got proper training. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to provide whatever training is necessary.

Nick Hawkins: May I add my congratulations to the two new Ministers on their appointments? The Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), has been promoted from being a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and the other Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), was previously our Minister for patriotism. I am not sure whether he regards his change of role as a promotion or not. In any event, we welcome him to his Department.
	The closure of magistrates courts in every county is something for which the hon. Gentleman and his Government have to take responsibility. It is not good enough for him to say, as his predecessors did, "It is up to local magistrates courts committees." He must recognise that the courts are closing, precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, because they are being told that they cannot afford the cost of the modifications resulting from the Human Rights Act. Courts round the country have to be modified and, because the Government will not pay for the modifications, those courts will close. Such closure is the denial of local justice by stealth. Will the Minister address that problem which his Government have created?

Michael Wills: Again, I suppose that I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. I should add that he will continue to hear from me on national identity.
	Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has some difficulty understanding how the system operates and I look forward to educating him a little more about how it works over Question Times to come. Of course, as the hon Gentleman knows extremely well, the provision of justice through magistrates courts is a matter for local magistrates courts committees. I am glad that he mentioned money, because we are proud of our record in funding the modernisation of the court service. We are proud of what we have done to ensure that magistrates courts deliver the system of justice to which the public are entitled.
	The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, in the past four years, we have increased by 12.8 per cent. the money available to magistrates courts to modernise. He keeps referring to the closure of magistrates courts. Of course some magistrates courts committees will decide that, in the interests of an efficient, effective and secure system of justice, some magistrates courts will close. That is inevitable and we make no apology for it. What matters is the service that the public receive and we shall ensure that they get the service that they deserve.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Electronic Voting

Simon Thomas: If he will bring forward proposals to introduce electronic voting to the Lobbies of the House.

Robin Cook: In the last Session, the Modernisation Committee conducted a survey of Members' views on electronic voting. A majority of hon. Members who responded were against such an innovation.

John Bercow: Excellent!

Robin Cook: Including the hon. Gentleman. I shall discuss with the Modernisation Committee whether there would be any value in revisiting the issue in this Parliament, but such a major change could not proceed without substantial support.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Leader of the House for his response and pay particular tribute to the reforming zeal that he has shown on taking up his new post, especially in the announcements that he made last night. What estimate has he made of the time that we waste voting in the Lobby? The devolved Administrations in these islands vote in minutes whereas we take hours. Has he made any estimate of how much extra time we would have to scrutinise, for example, Select Committee reports or the Executive if we voted in an alternative way? We could keep a Lobby a day for the Lobby junkies, but time could also be freed up for scrutiny in the House. Incidentally, we could also get rid of the abomination that is deferred voting. Will he reconsider?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to go to the heart of the debate, which is whether electronic voting would permit quicker voting. There would be a time saving. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that the eight minutes that are required to enable Members to attend before the Doors are locked represent the majority of the time taken for Divisions of the House. Unless it were proposed that those eight minutes should themselves be reduced, electronic voting would save three or four minutes per Division at most. That is not without significance in itself, but it must be weighed against the fact that most Members when last asked wanted the present system, not electronic voting. The final decision must be for the House.

Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why a majority of the House has continually argued the case for voting in the manner that we do is that, although it takes 15 minutes, it enables Members of Parliament to put Ministers and Cabinet Ministers under scrutiny when we have not been able to find them during the rest of the week?

Robin Cook: I am very familiar with the principle that my hon. Friend enunciates. I assure him and the House that all electronic voting systems that were considered in the last Parliament required the personal presence of the Members voting. For example, if we were to introduce smart cards, all Members would have to go through the Aye or No Lobby, although they might be able to go through more quickly. There is a balance to be struck.

Laptop Computers

Michael Jack: What plans he has to ensure that laptop computers can be used in the Committee Rooms of the House.

Stephen Twigg: I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter before and I have considerable sympathy with the argument that the House should move with the latest technology. In the first instance, that is a matter for the Chairmen's Panel, which must rule on what is and is not permissible in Standing Committee. However, in the last Parliament the Modernisation Committee considered the way in which Parliament uses information technology and it may well return to that issue in this Parliament.

Michael Jack: I am most grateful to the Minister for his very positive response to my small campaign, particularly in the light of the fact that, as a result of the agreements made last week, Members are, among other things, to be able to have a laptop computer. Those could be used, for example, to take bulky documents, such as notes on clauses for the Finance Bill, into the Committee Room in electronic form, but we are not permitted to do that. A small hand-held computer, however, can be taken into Committee.
	May I urge the Minister to continue the work that he mentioned in his answer, particularly through the Modernisation Committee, so that Members—especially Opposition Members—can sensibly use electronic aids to enhance their ability to scrutinise the Government's work?

Stephen Twigg: I am well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's long-standing small campaign, which may reach fruition in the coming Session. I am also aware of the advantages that he has described. As I have said, this is a matter for the Chairmen's Panel in the first instance, but I believe the Information Committee has already conducted an experimental paperless meeting that was viewed positively by its members, and I therefore believe that progress will be forthcoming.

Andrew Miller: I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), and welcome what my hon. Friend has said.
	The main chamber of the Californian Assembly has a laptop at every position. That has not disrupted its work, but has enhanced it, and many other Parliaments are doing the same. We are lagging behind, and I urge my hon. Friend to use his good offices to press the programme forward.

Stephen Twigg: Clearly the small campaign has cross-party support. One of the changes in Standing Orders agreed during the past few weeks will enable Committees to work more closely together, which will give the Information, Modernisation and Procedure Committees an opportunity to work together on this matter.

Angela Browning: While there are clearly several advantages in proceeding with the investigation of the use of laptops in Committees and so on, I caution the hon. Gentleman, especially in the light of what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). If we are to set a precedent, obviously it may well apply to the Chamber. The idea of our having to gut the Chamber and fit it out with tables and chairs—or, heaven forbid, have some sort of hemicycle and look like every other Parliament in the European Union—is one that I would resist at all costs.

Stephen Twigg: I am well aware that the hon. Lady would wish us to resist learning from other countries in the European Union, but I am not sure that her view is shared by all Members, or even by those on the Opposition Benches. I think that if we can learn lessons from positive examples in other parts of the world we should do so, and I believe that we can do so in the case of the instance raised by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

Scrutiny

David Clelland: What proposals he has to increase the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny.

Robin Cook: The Queen's Speech announced four draft Bills, including major Bills on communications and rail safety. I will aim in future Sessions to introduce as many Bills as possible in draft, but in view of constraints such as the availability of parliamentary draftsmen, it will take time to achieve a system in which scrutiny in draft is the norm.

David Clelland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the last Parliament I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Committee? As he will know, the Committee was something of a hybrid, being part Select Committee and part Standing Committee. That gave us an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and visit establishments affected by the legislation before beginning the Standing Committee procedure and considering amendments. I know that the Government's enthusiasm for Select Committees has taken a bit of a knock recently, but does my right hon. Friend feel that the same process might be suitable for other legislation in future?

Robin Cook: First, let me assure my hon. Friend that my enthusiasm for Select Committees remains undiminished. Indeed, this Government have established the Select Committees faster than any previous Parliament. I agree with his central point, however: if we achieve legislation in draft, we are more likely to have good legislation when it is published. In this case good scrutiny makes for good legislation, and for good government.
	I certainly give my hon. Friend an undertaking—in the light of his, and my, experience of draft legislation—that I will seek wherever possible to introduce Bills early enough for them to be considered in draft.

Paul Tyler: Last night the House was concerned primarily with who should be our parliamentary watchdogs, and a shot, or a fuselage of shots, went across the Government's bows.

Dennis Skinner: Fusillade!

Paul Tyler: I am sorry—a fusillade. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting me.
	Now, however, we should move on to consider how we can make the Select Committees more effective. I know that the Leader of the House has in mind pre-legislative scrutiny that is appropriate to such Committees, and I think he also has in mind a rolling programme of legislation so that we do not try to cram it all into one Session. Can he give an assurance not only that those issues will be addressed urgently, but that Committees' scrutiny of European legislation will be improved? It is primitive and far less effective in this House, in this place, in this country than in most neighbouring European countries.

Robin Cook: I am not entirely sure that all the shots last night went over our bows, but I absolutely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about Select Committees. Indeed, in the previous Parliament, the Modernisation Committee identified Select Committees as one of the forums in which pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills could be carried out. I would encourage departmental Select Committees to fulfil that function.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the way in which the House carries out its European scrutiny. That issue will need to be addressed by the Modernisation Committee, but I put down a marker that one of the ways in which it could be addressed is to mainstream European scrutiny throughout the departmental Select Committees, rather than hiving it off into a separate forum.

Anne Begg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that, in the Scottish Parliament, pre-legislative scrutiny is part of the legislative process. Will he undertake to look into how that is working in the Scottish Parliament: not only the upside on how well it is working, but some of the flaws of the system? For example, I believe that there is some problem with the foxhunting Bill because of the composition of the Committee that has been considering it. However, I join others in arguing that if there is merit in the proposal, and I believe that there is, the scrutinising role of Select Committees should be enhanced in that way.

Robin Cook: I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that I have already met my opposite number in the Scottish Parliament and hope to visit the Scottish Parliament in September to see what lessons we can learn. It has had an advantage that we do not have: it has created the rule book from scratch. There has been no base on which to build and nothing to constrain it. There may be lessons that we can learn and I am happy to study them.

James Gray: Although the House welcomes the pre-legislative scrutiny—after all it was a Conservative Government who first brought in the notion of publishing draft Bills in advance—will the President of the Council acknowledge that no amount of pre-legislative scrutiny should reduce the important scrutiny of a Bill once it has gone through its First and Second Readings on the Floor and is in Committee? At no stage must that scrutiny, which after all is party political—pre-legislative scrutiny tends to be cross-party—be reduced.

Robin Cook: Nobody is suggesting that there is a trade-off between scrutiny in draft and scrutiny of a Bill brought before the House on Second Reading. The procedures for scrutiny in the House will continue. At the same time, if we get the draft right as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny, we can save the time of the House and hon. Members as well as of Ministers. In the previous Parliament, the International Criminal Court Bill went through the House more quickly than it might have done if it had not been scrutinised in draft first.

Scrutiny

Fiona Mactaggart: What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the way in which the House scrutinises the Executive and proposed legislation.

Stephen Twigg: Improvements have already been made. Not only is there a new forum in Westminster Hall, but the Standing Order changes agreed by the House on 5 July should make it easier for Select Committees to work together and with their counterparts in the Lords to scrutinise Government.
	The Government have experimented with Second Reading Committees and Special Standing Committees and brought forward Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Council said. We will continue to do so.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome him to his new post. Over the past 24 hours, we have spoken a lot about pre-legislative scrutiny. It is my view that, in the debate yesterday, there was a certain amount of complacency about the great respect in which Select Committees are held. Our right hon. Friend the President of the Council has given an undertaking to arrange for an inquiry into Select Committee membership. Will he ensure that the Modernisation Committee follows that up with a good look at other ways to improve the powers of Select Committees, in order that they can more effectively scrutinise the Executive? Unless they have the power—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.

Stephen Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks in welcoming me to my post. My right hon. Friend the President of the Council made it clear yesterday that the methods for the appointment of Members to Select Committees would be at the top of the agenda of the new Modernisation Committee, which is convened tomorrow. That does not preclude our looking at broader issues about the powers and role of Select Committees. That will form part of the work of the Modernisation Committee, and be raised in broader debates involving other Committees.

Henry Bellingham: Speaking as one who has been recently re-elected to the House, one of my observations is that, in the past four years, all too often Ministers have made statements on radio programmes or in arenas other than the House, whereas they should have come to the House to explain their actions to hon. Members. What will the Minister do to put that right?

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House. I believe that it is important that, whenever possible, statements be made in the Chamber. We shall do our best to ensure that that happens.

Scrutiny

Helen Jackson: What proposals he has to enhance the scrutiny role of parliamentary committees.

Robin Cook: I have already responded to recommendations of the Liaison Committee to give greater freedom to Select Committees to decide for themselves to appoint Sub-Committees or Joint Committees. There are further proposals in the reports of the Liaison Committee and of the Hansard Society on which I want to consult, such as the proposal for a weekly slot of a half hour after Question Time to consider topical reports. I have given the House an undertaking that, tomorrow, I shall ask the Modernisation Committee to review the process of nominations to Select Committees to ensure their independence. If we reach agreement, I would intend to report to the House in the autumn.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a tendency in the House for every hon. Member—100 per cent. of us—to mouth the platitude that it is absolutely crucial that we enhance Parliament's role of scrutinising the Executive? However, do we not also tend to vote to leave the House's procedures largely unchanged? Does he agree that keeping our procedures as they are will neither modernise Committees nor enhance their powers? Does he also agree that every hon. Member should be allocated work on a Committee to enhance their role as a Member of Parliament?

Robin Cook: I very much welcome the momentum for reform that was gathered last night, and I hope that we shall be able to take that forward to achieve real reforms both in the ways in which Select Committees are set up and the ways in which they are able to exercise their powers of scrutiny.
	My hon. Friend raised the possibility of all hon. Members being members of Select Committees. In the final analysis, it is for hon. Members themselves to decide whether they wish to serve. However, I would not resist the conclusion reached from yesterday's debate that the House might benefit from having larger numbers on Select Committees. It is an issue to which I would wish to return in the autumn.

Points of Order

Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which affects the Leader of the House. Yesterday, he made a short statement on the arrangements that will be made in relation to membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, saying that he would be asking the House to set aside part of Standing Order No. 121 so that those membership arrangements can be considered at shorter notice. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, although there are probably serious problems with the Northern Ireland peace process, the House has not yet been made aware of the names of members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee.
	My point of order is to inquire whether the motion that the Leader of the House will be tabling for the House to consider on Thursday will be constructed in a manner that makes it possible to sort out the details of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, as we intend to sort out the details of the other two Select Committees. Do you, Mr. Speaker, have any means of influencing the situation to ensure that that Select Committee is sorted out before the House rises for the summer recess?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. In the first instance, under Standing Order No. 152, the nomination of members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee is a matter for the Committee of Selection. As for the contents of the Leader of the House's proposed motion under Standing Order No. 121 and the notice required before the House may consider motions for the nomination of Select Committees, those are not matters for me. However, I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.

Jane Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would welcome your help in setting the record straight. Last Tuesday, in an Adjournment debate that I raised about a school sports accident that happened to my constituent, I unwittingly misled the House. I said at the time that the teacher who started the race could not see what happened, but I have now seen clear evidence that that was not the case and that the teacher, Mr. Day, tried to cover up his own culpability by lying to my constituent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has put the matter on the record.

Robin Cook: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), let me assure the House that it is our intention on Thursday to bring before the House any nominations for whatever Committee that are cleared by the Committee of Selection.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	European Communities (Amendment) Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 11 July].

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]
	 — 
	Clause 1
	 — 
	Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice

Amendment proposed [11 July]: No. 40, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 1),.'—[Mr. John Wilkinson.]
	Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Alan Haselhurst: I remind the Committee that we are discussing the following: Amendment: No. 41, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 2),'.
	Amendment No. 42, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 3),'.
	Amendment No. 43, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 4),'.
	Amendment No. 44, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 5),'.
	Amendment No. 45, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 6),'.
	Amendment No. 46, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 7),'.
	Amendment No. 47, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 8),'.
	Amendment No. 48, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 9),'.
	Amendment No. 53, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 15),'.
	Amendment No. 78, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 47'.
	Amendment No. 29, in page 1, line 12, after "occasion", insert—
	'except for Article 3, paragraph 1(b) of the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union in so far as that relates to the appointment of a special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy'.
	New clause 1—Special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy—
	'In relation to Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Treaty of Nice, amending Article 23(2) TEU, prior to a vote in the Council on the appointment of a special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy, Her Majesty's Government shall lay a report before Parliament setting out its preferred candidate for the post and shall lay a further report after the Council meeting if that candidate has not been adopted.'.
	New clause 2—International agreements under Article 24 TEU—
	'In relation to Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Treaty of Nice, amending Article 24 TEU, prior to casting a vote in the Council on any such international agreement, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications for the United Kingdom of such an agreement.'.
	New clause 7—Western European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—
	'This Act will not come into effect until Her Majesty's Government has laid before Parliament a report showing the implications for the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, for the future functioning of these organisations, and for the United Kingdom's role therein, of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 17 TEU, and Article 1, paragraph 5 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 25 TEU.'.
	New clause 8—Adoption of decisions under Article 17, paragraph 1, TEU—
	'For the purpose of Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Nice, the constitutional requirement of the United Kingdom before any decision under that paragraph (common defence) may be adopted by the United Kingdom shall be that the decision shall have been approved by an Act of Parliament.'.
	New clause 33—Eurojust—
	'This Act shall not come into force until Her Majesty's Government has obtained, and laid before Parliament, legal advice from the Attorney General on the effect on the criminal and judicial processes in the United Kingdom of Article 1, paragraph 8 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 31 TEU, as they relate to the provisions on Eurojust.'.

William Cash: As usual, I declare an interest as mentioned in the Register of Members' Interests.
	At the end the previous debate, I was speaking about the role of Mr. Solana and I said that before he was appointed, he campaigned against NATO for about seven years. I have to say that that did not fill me with a great deal of encouragement.
	Article 23 of the treaty on European Union refers to the appointment of common foreign and security policy special representatives and provides for the extension of qualified majority voting when appointing a special representative, currently the said Javier Solana—who, by some pretty skilful manipulation, jumped from being Secretary-General of NATO to being in charge of the CFSP as the special representative, and has extraordinarily significant powers. I hope that his performance improves on the basis that I have just described. The same extension of qualified majority voting also applies when appointing a deputy. In my judgment, that will further reduce the accountability of the reaction force and reinforce its autonomy.
	Article 24 raises a number of problems in relation to international agreements in the CFSP and the JHA—Justice and Home Affairs Committee—with qualified majority voting. In my judgment, the article is phrased in a most unsatisfactory fashion and, probably on purpose, retains veto powers, as I have explained, but not in respect of certain other articles which raise a number of questions that I shall not deal with now, but refer to the Minister in my written submissions to him. Perhaps he will deal with them in writing.
	In October 1998, during an informal summit at Poertschach in Austria, the Prime Minister launched the ESDI in a speech of which no transcript is publicly available. No such policy was even hinted at in the strategic defence review published just three months earlier. Indeed, leaked Cabinet papers show that Ministers opposed the plan in 1997. There has been a massive U-turn. The Prime Minister decided at the Helsinki summit to forge ahead in defence by establishing what was then to be a 65,000-strong European defence corps. Apparently, it has now been trimmed to 60,000, as I shall point out in a moment.
	Of course, the Prime Minister denied the obvious fact that we have created a European army. As I said in the previous sitting, that army is to be autonomous and subject to majority voting. It will have an international remit, rather than a merely European one. I asked the Prime Minister when he returned from the Helsinki summit what else the words "autonomous" and "international" meant, as used in the presidency conclusions that he signed.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend said that Ministers opposed the idea of a European army in 1997. Did not the Prime Minister also object to the proposal, and describe it as an "ill-judged transplant operation"?

William Cash: Indeed, and that shows how ambiguous and deceitful the arrangement is. What its inspiration is, and what deals are being struck, are matters for conjecture. No doubt they will be revealed when the Cabinet papers are disclosed in due course, but the gravamen of my charge is that it will be far too late by then.
	In March 1998, the Prime Minister issued an unequivocal pledge, on which he has now ratted. He said:
	"Britain will never put at risk NATO, the foundation of our security. Britain and France, and many others, insist that there is no European Commission role in military matters. No country will ever yield up control of their own armed forces."
	I believe that Britain is giving up that control.
	As I predicted some time ago, the Western European Union was abolished earlier this year. By any sane measure, Europe is far from solving the problem of lack of co-ordination that hamstrung its policy and action in the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo. It was Germany's unilateral decision to recognise Croatia that contributed to the problems that beset Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. The Foreign Secretary of the day, who is now my noble Friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, said originally that Britain would not recognise Croatia, but later told the House that we would. I remember that I challenged him about that. In statements made to me in private, I received good and authentic evidence that that reversal stemmed from a deal connected to Britain's opt-out from economic and monetary union.
	Germany's Foreign Minister at the time was Mr. Genscher. He described the recognition of Croatia as
	"the greatest victory of German foreign policy since 1945."
	I do not consider that much of a victory.

Julian Lewis: Was what happened in 1945 a victory for the Germans?

William Cash: My father was killed in 1944, so I am more than happy to say that I believe that the war ended in victory for Britain.
	The Franco-German summit contained declarations on the shared military intelligence satellite Syracuse 3, on a rapid deployment corps, and on heavy-lift capacity. I have already referred to the dismal spending levels that have been set, which demonstrate the lack of will to combine proposed functions with the resources that are claimed to be necessary. We are creating a serious foreign policy, diplomatic and military problem. Potential enemies are given a substantial advantage—which they will always exploit—when they see that policies on military capability are not backed up with resources.

Patrick Mercer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European rapid reaction force will add not a single ounce to Europe's combat power? Not one extra gun, tank, bayonet, aircraft or ship will be added to the strength. The proposals deal with headquarters, communications and sappers only, not with anything directly involved in fighting.

William Cash: I was going to come to that, but my hon. Friend won a great victory in Newark at the general election and has enormous knowledge of military matters, so I completely agree with what he says.
	The rapid reaction force is a nightmare. It is to have a full-time military command structure. In the light of what my hon. Friend says, it is pretty astonishing that there will be additional staff to man the so-called capability when it is a phantom army.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend may have missed hearing the Minister for Europe say on television earlier today that the European Union had already brought to an end the cold war and ensured that there had been no war in western Europe since 1945. If it could do all that without an army, why does it conceivably need one now?

William Cash: It is a case of a great deal of hot air. It is extremely difficult. We are moving from a cold war to a hot war, at any rate in so far as a vast amount of hot air is being generated. With rotation, the so-called military command structure is even more frightening. The amount of apparent capability supposedly generated will be as many as 240,000 troops, not the 60,000 that have been mentioned. The target date for readiness is 2003. So we have an exponential rise in expectations, a decreasing amount of money and resources to be made available, and no evidence that the force will be able to perform any useful function.
	The United Kingdom will contribute 24,000 troops to the new force, who will come from the United Kingdom's NATO reaction force. Eighteen warships and a quarter of the Royal Air Force and the Army will be allocated to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is engaged in some rather important leadership business at the moment, but I wish that he were here today, because he has led the exposure in the House of Commons, the United States and elsewhere of this absolutely ridiculous situation. We remember only too well all the correspondence and articles in the newspapers demonstrating the incredible weakness of our capacity, whether one refers to our nuclear submarines or inadequate equipment and naval provision.
	There is a range of reasons why we need to be deeply worried that, rather than concentrating on an effective force within the United Kingdom for the use of the Alliance, we are merging our thinking into a strategic black hole—a force that is incapable of performance and has not got the money to back it up. There will be a 100-strong military staff committee, which will effectively end NATO's monopoly. That is highly dangerous.
	There are contradictions in control and command. If one looks at the nightmare of the legal framework that has been created, one wonders how on earth—as I wrote in a book called "Europe: The Crunch" about eight years ago—it will conceivably be possible to have any control and command in the middle of the night when something crops up. In the case of the enlarged Community, 27 countries with their military staff, generals and the rest of it will all be trying to work out what provisions apply, whether the force will operate under a degree of qualified majority voting or whether there is a direct control and command system. If I was a potential enemy—thank God, if I may say so, that I am exactly the opposite—I would say to myself, "Heavens above, we have really got these people where we want them because they will never be able to deliver any kind of strategic or tactical position." We know that not a single military unit is to be created.
	On article 17 of the treaty on European Union, the current moves towards the rapid reaction force require no treaty modifications. They followed the summits at Feira, St. Malo and Cologne, but I believe that Maastricht and Amsterdam together provide a perfectly adequate treaty base, and that is where the problems lie. The declaration, next to the final act of the intergovernmental conference regarding European security and defence policy, makes that abundantly clear. As I have repeatedly argued, the issue of the rapid reaction force is entirely separate from that of Nice. Member states are forced to ride roughshod over their constitutional arrangements. In my judgment, they are forced to act anti-constitutionally.
	With regard to article 25 of the treaty on European Union, the Political Committee introduced at Amsterdam with the stated purpose of monitoring international affairs is now renamed the Political and Security Committee. Its power is substantially increased as it takes on a number of strategic and management tasks relating to military operations. In fact, it is intended that it will direct Euro-soldiers in combat.
	The declaration added to the end of the article is crucial because it basically states that the existing treaty base is enough to enable the European Union to launch military operations. That has to be taken in the context of the single autonomous structure in which NATO as a whole is not engaged. Indeed, the declaration refers to the lengthy presidency conclusions on military affairs which prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the reality of an autonomous European army, drawing on national armies' personnel, with an independent control centre separate from NATO.
	In conclusion, the lesson for this century is not that Europe is, or can in the foreseeable future ever be, the guarantor of Britain's security. The true guarantor of Britain's defence has, rather, lain in her close co-operation with the United States through NATO. As Churchill put it, the supreme fact of the 20th century was that Britain and America marched together. A common European defence would lead Britain to dissolve her national interests into those of others. As Churchill said, we should be associated but not absorbed. For that reason, we must resist common European defence and instead turn our attention to strengthening our own woefully underfunded armed forces.

Denzil Davies: I will be brief, and I will not follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in his analysis of what happened at the various conferences that have set up this European defence arrangement, to use a neutral expression.
	Some of us may not remember the Werner report in the 1970s which led to the exchange rate mechanism, which then led to the single currency. I suggest that whatever the defects of this arrangement are, its purpose is quite clear. It will take some time but, just as the Euro-area has a single currency, the purpose of this arrangement is eventually to create a European army. The attempts by the Euro-enthusiasts to mask this are not very different from those that have been made with regard to other steps towards integration.
	One of the reasons why the population of Europe are so concerned about the European Union is that they have not been told that and are beginning to understand that the European elite has been pretending to them all along. The best course for the Euro-enthusiasts to take would be to admit these things. There is no shame in it—if that is what they want, they should say so. That would be a much better way of opening a clear and informed debate about the European Union and the direction in which it should go.
	I should like to return to the more esoteric matters in these treaties. I apologise for doing this after the Minister for Europe wrote in a very interesting article in The Independent that language must be much clearer when considering these matters. I quite agree with him.
	I am not questioning the selection of amendments, but I was surprised that we were to debate amendments to the treaty on European Union. The only amendments in the Nice treaty to the treaty on European Union are in article 1. Whereas the long title of the Bill refers to making
	"provision consequential on the Treaty signed at Nice . . . amending the Treaty on European Union"—
	that is stating merely what the Nice treaty did— clause 1, which incorporates the provisions of the treaty of Nice into UK law, refers to the treaties on European Communities and to articles 2 to 10 of the Nice treaty.
	None of those articles refers directly to the treaty on European Union—only article 1 does so. I deduce from that—I am not questioning whether we should have a debate—that the treaty on European Union did not create rights and obligations for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972 in the UK. Perhaps I should not try to make the Minister's speech for him; perhaps he will not say that.
	Clause 1(1)(ii) refers to
	"the other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those Articles"—
	articles 2 to 10, which relate to the treaties establishing the European Communities. There may be something in article 1, especially in relation to enhanced co-operation, that follows on from the treaty on European Communities, but perhaps that does not give rise to any rights and obligations on questions of defence under the European Communities Act 1972. It is right that such matters should be debated—although I am not questioning that.
	We have a haphazard way in this House—these points have been made in the past—of debating and amending treaties. We cannot amend treaties, but we can pretend to do so only when their provisions affect internal law. I cannot remember what happened in the case of the treaty on European Union. Presumably, it was debated in this House under the Ponsonby rules, which are in some way supposed to ameliorate the effects of the royal prerogative, whereby the Crown does not need to debate such treaties in the House.
	I have not looked it up, but I suppose that the treaty on European Union was debated as a treaty. I know that there was no legislation. Presumably, it was not needed because it was felt that the treaty did not affect internal law. I am not even sure whether it is a treaty in international law, but perhaps I will return to that. If it is, notice must be given under the Ponsonby rules and the House must debate it—although it cannot, of course, amend such treaties.
	World Trade Organisation agreements and general agreements on tariffs and trade, which are so important but may not have a direct effect on internal law, are not amendable by the House either. Perhaps the Modernisation Committee, which is modernising everything, could look at that.

William Cash: I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's line. In the United States, questions of treaties are dealt with by the Senate. We have just had some interesting debates on the power of this Parliament in respect of Select Committees, so perhaps there are some lessons in that.

Denzil Davies: Indeed, although I believe that the United States has a fast-track system which it tries to apply to treaties such as the GATT. However, although I do not want to revisit yesterday's Select Committee debate, I have to point out a fundamental difference. The British Executive sit in the legislature, whereas the United States Executive do not. We do not have separation of powers, whereas the United States does.
	Even though they may not change internal law, international treaties such as the GATT increasingly impinge. The forthcoming treaty on services, which is likely to be hugely controversial, will come before the House as a single document which there will be no opportunity to amend.
	I make this point as an aside to the debate on so-called treaties. If we are concerned about democracy, or even if we are supposed to pretend that we are not worried about the demonstrations in Genoa and Gothenburg, perhaps the Modernisation Committee should consider the matter and recommend that, in future, even if they do not have a direct effect on internal law, we should examine, debate and even attempt to amend the treaties that the international bureaucracy now tends to bring forth at a much faster rate than they were produced in the 18th and 19th centuries.
	I see you looking at me, Sir Alan; perhaps you are wondering whether the right hon. Member for Llanelli is straying a little, even though, as I am sure you are aware, he never does. However, to return to the treaty on European Union, I am surprised that debate on it has been allowed. I see you frown, Sir Alan, but I should be interested to learn from the Minister—if he can tell us—which domestic rights and obligations are affected by the treaty on European Union. If none are affected, what on earth are we debating the treaty for? However, if we are debating it, presumably some rights and obligations are incorporated in English, British or United Kingdom law by the 1972 Act. The House should be told what the treaty on European Union puts into internal law.
	I hope I do not stray too far, but I should like to say a word or two about treaties and the royal prerogative. The treaty on European Union is called a treaty, but it is not a treaty for the purposes of the Vienna convention definition, which states clearly that a treaty must be governed by international law. Well, perish the thought—the European treaties are not governed by international law.
	If someone were to turn up at the European Court of Justice and say that one of the provisions of the European treaties was contrary to fundamental principles of international law, he would get short shrift from the Court. The Court might look at the principles of international law when interpreting the treaty, but the treaties we are debating are certainly not Vienna convention treaties. I do not know whether, ultimately, they come within the scope of the prerogative. The argument will probably lead me up a cul-de-sac.

John Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman makes the interesting and, I fear, accurate comment that we are setting forth on a course that leads towards a European army that we will not directly control. Will he say how long he thinks it will be before a British soldier is sent into battle or a dangerous situation against the will of the British people and there is nothing that we can do about it?

Denzil Davies: I do not think that I can prophesy on that subject, even though I was a Labour party defence spokesman—perhaps ingloriously—in the 1980s. At least in the 1980s we knew that we had an enemy. These days, I listen to debates about defence and armaments and I wonder where the enemy is. I would not like to be a shadow defence spokesman these days, because that is a difficult job when there is no enemy. I might answer the right hon. Gentleman's question if he tells me who the enemy is. No doubt, the military bureaucracy has made attempts to find enemies everywhere.

John Redwood: Let us suppose that the European rapid reaction force was sent to dangerous territory in the Balkans, and the British people were not happy about the side in the conflict on whose behalf we were engaged. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that could happen against the will of the British people if we go along the course set out by the Government today?

Denzil Davies: While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on many matters, I would be surprised if, at the end of the day, British forces, whatever the legal position on treaties, were sent into battle without a debate and a vote in the House. I would be worried if we were moving towards arrangements whereby that was likely to happen; I hope that we are not and that, whatever the position on legal sovereignty, the will of the House would allow or prevent such action.
	Returning to my rather esoteric point—we are debating esoteric matters in these European treaties—it is not satisfactory to debate and amend treaties merely because they affect our internal law. We are now in a difficult area because we do not know how far internal law is affected by the treaty on European Union or what rights and obligations are being created. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me. I know that he has sent me a few letters but, on this occasion, I should like a short, clear, pithy statement about the rights and obligations which, if we allow the measure to go through—

Peter Hain: indicated assent

Denzil Davies: I see that my hon. Friend is apprised of the point and is clearly able to give such a reply. Which rights and obligations are we incorporating in English law?

Michael Howard: For the second time in a fortnight, I have the great good fortune to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who represents my home town in Parliament, in a debate on the Bill. As usual, his speech was marked by intellectual rigour and distinction; its logic was compelling. I am sure that we all await with great anticipation the appropriately detailed reply that the Minister will doubtless give at the end of our debate.
	I begin by congratulating the Minister on the speech, "Plain Speaking on Europe", that we understand he will give elsewhere later today and is directly relevant to the subjects that we are debating. I am not entirely sure whether I have the final version because my copy still includes the annotation from the now famous J. B.:
	"would be cautious about criticising the BBC".
	When the speech is made, it will be interesting to see whether the Minister has taken J. B.'s cautionary note to heart or whether it includes the criticism of the BBC that was in the draft. The Minister may wish to enlighten us about that during our debate; otherwise, we may have to wait.
	The speech is excellent and I commend it to the Committee. In it, the Minister says:
	"Despite having voted YES in the 1975 referendum for Britain to be in Europe, within minutes of my appointment last month I was dubbed a 'Eurosceptic'."
	I welcome the Minister to the club. I, too, voted yes in the 1975 referendum, and the label has been applied to me. The Minister continues:
	"Why should politicians be labelled either Eurosceptic or 'Europhile'? Like most people, I am neither. I am just as opposed to Euro phobia as I am to Euro zealotry."
	Again, I agree entirely.
	Even more relevant to this afternoon's debate, the Minister says:
	"In an era of destiny probably more important for Britain than at any time since we joined the European Common Market in the early 1970s, this is an appeal for plain speaking on Europe. No political spin. No media hype . . . No pejorative prejudices, just an honest straightforward discussion of difficult but momentous issues."
	I am sure that we all agree with that.
	When the Minister explained the speech on "Today" this morning, he said that it had been cleared by No. 10; I am sure that we were all gratified to hear that, but I wonder whether it is quite enough. It seems not so much that the speech should be cleared by No. 10 but that that address should be its primary, perhaps only, destination. No one is more guilty of the spin, hype and pejorative prejudice that have been introduced to the debate than the Prime Minister. Whenever an Opposition Member makes a point that is mildly critical of any developments that are directly relevant to those that we are debating, the right hon. Gentleman promptly accuses the person making it, from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition down, of wanting to leave the European Union altogether. That is his stock response to any criticism of any such development. I hope that the Minister's speech, which I warmly welcome, was cleared by No. 10 and was read with care by the Prime Minister. I hope also that it may influence his conduct on these matters henceforth.

John Redwood: I am slightly worried in case my right hon. and learned Friend has been uncharacteristically over-generous to the Minister. I wonder whether the Minister is flying under false colours. He is a Minister who wishes to give away all the vetoes in the treaty. He is a Minister who wishes to scrap the pound. He wishes to increase the stranglehold of Brussels on many aspects of our life. How can he possibly say that he is anything other than a Euro-enthusiast?

Michael Howard: Do we know what the Minister wishes? I am not entirely sure that we do, and I am not sure that we are entitled to draw the inferences that my right hon. Friend has drawn. We know that the Minister is speaking in favour of the treaty and of the Bill, which may not be entirely the same thing.
	I return to what the Minister said when he intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) towards the end of last week's debate. What the Minister said comes near to the nub of the debate on these issues. He posed this question:
	"If there is a crisis in the Balkans, for example, and the US is not willing to provide assistance and NATO is not willing to intervene, do we just turn our backs? Is there not a role for a European capability? Is it not the case that a European security and defence policy provides exactly that capability? What would the hon. Gentleman do?"—[Official Report, 11 July 2001; Vol. 3711, c. 889.]
	The phrase used by the plain-speaking Minister in that question was a departure in the debate. He used the formulation
	"If . . . the US is not willing to provide assistance and NATO is not willing to intervene".
	The Prime Minister usually talks about a situation that will arise if NATO chooses not to be engaged. The Minister raises his hands as though there is no difference: these are matters not of semantics but of great importance. There is nothing in the agreements, in the presidency conclusions in that part of the Nice treaty that deals with these matters or in any of the documents to indicate that the European defence capability would come into play only if NATO chooses not to be engaged.
	The phrase "NATO chooses not to be engaged" implies some NATO right to act before the European defence capability is engaged, and that is clearly not the case. For example, the words of the French chief of the defence staff are helpfully quoted on page 40 of the excellent Library document on these matters. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph on 28 March 2001, General Kelche said:
	"There is no question of a right of first refusal. If the EU does its work properly, it will be able to start working on crises at a very early stage, well before the situation escalates. Where is the first refusal? NATO has nothing to do with this. At a certain stage the Europeans would decide to conduct a military operation. Either the Americans would come, or not. If they want to come, they will always be welcome. They are powerful. We recognise that there are things that we cannot do without them, today. Later, we must be able to act alone. Europe is an enormous economic power, but not yet a mature military power."
	That is at the heart of the debate. I do not think that any hon. Member would demur from the proposition that European countries should do more on defence and co-operate more closely on defence issues. Nobody would deny that circumstances can indeed be easily identified, perhaps in the Balkans, in which the United States might say that it does not wish to become engaged, but that it has no objection whatever to European countries acting in co-operation to deal with the problem. I do not think that any reasonable person would object to that goal.

Peter Hain: The right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with my speech and therefore with the Government. I welcome him to the fold.

Michael Howard: I am sorry to have to say so soon after mentioning the Minister's devotion to plain speaking that his remarks are completely at variance with the documents that the Government have signed. Everything that I have spoken about and described could and should be done within the framework of NATO. It would be perfectly possible and feasible for the United States to say "We have no wish to send American troops to deal with this problem in the Balkans, but if you Europeans want to go in and sort it out, fine: do so within the framework of NATO, using its planning procedures and assets. We will not come along, but there is absolutely no reason why this should not be done within NATO."
	The mischief and danger to which we object is that, for the first time, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, the Government have, in contradiction of their previous position, signed up to arrangements that ensure that such actions can be taken outside the framework of NATO.

Doug Henderson: The House will recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is an exceptionally alert representative of a case. There is a difference, however, between the legal and political arguments. I do not believe that he has considered the political arguments. Has he reflected on the position of European Union countries that are not members of NATO? Does not he recognise that when the Americans take the view that it is better for NATO not to be involved, whether it is because Texans object or whatever else, the wider European community needs a focus to enable it to carry through the policy of European countries? Under the agreement that was struck at Nice, the European Union now provides a forum in which that can happen.

Michael Howard: Let me take the hon. Gentleman's two questions in turn. There is no difficulty about involving non-NATO members of the European Union. The easiest way of dealing with these matters would be for them to join NATO, but if they did not want to do so, resort could be made to Western European Union mechanisms, which have existed for a considerable time and which involve non-NATO members of the European Union in any actions that are desirable.
	Non-NATO members of the EU are represented on the staff of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe at Mons, as General Ralston reminded those of us who were privileged to listen to him this morning at a meeting of the British-American parliamentary group—I shall return later to what he said—and there is no difficulty whatever about using the NATO planning processes for an operation in which non-NATO members of the EU could participate.
	The hon. Gentleman's second question was about whether the United States might wish to participate, which brings us to the nub of the question. When all is said and done, there is only one situation in which the arrangements to which the Government have now agreed will become relevant. It is not a situation in which the United States does not wish to participate but is content for the European members of NATO to go ahead and do whatever they want to do; the only situation in which the arrangements become relevant is one in which the United States does not merely wish not to be engaged but is actually opposed to engagement.
	The most remarkable fact, as I have previously pointed out in the House, is that recent history shows that it is not too difficult to identify when we have had differences with our EU partners about such matters. It is not all that long ago that the Belgians refused to sell us bullets that we needed to participate in the Gulf war. As far as I can recall, there has been only one occasion since the second world war when we have been at odds with the United States, and that was Suez. So the Government are, in effect, going to all these lengths to enable a British Government to mount another Suez operation. That is the bottom line. That is what it comes down to. That is the only situation in which these arrangements could become relevant.

Mark Hendrick: Given the attitude of European nations and, in particular, the UK, when the United States chooses to use forces in Panama or elsewhere, it would be inconceivable that the United States would wish to prohibit EU member states from carrying out operations against the likes of those whom we saw in Bosnia, where there was slaughter, mass killings and ethnic cleansing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that, in some way, the United States might oppose our taking action in Europe is like saying that we might oppose what has happened in, for example, Panama.

Michael Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I am inclined to agree with him. This is utterly fanciful. I do not think that, if a situation arose in the Balkans and the Europeans wanted to act without the involvement of the United States, the United States would be remotely likely to suggest—

Mark Hendrick: That is a red herring.

Michael Howard: It is not a red herring. It is the only situation in which the arrangement that the Government have signed up to would have any relevance or make sense. If the United States does not object to any European action, it can all take place within the framework of NATO. That is the point. The United States can say that we should use the NATO processes and assets—that it does not want to send American troops, but that everything can be done through NATO. That was the position of the previous and the present British Governments until agreement was reached at St. Malo, so let us not have any nonsense from Labour Members to the effect that the Opposition's position is in any way outlandish, ludicrous, unreasonable or Europhobic. It is precisely the position that the present British Government held after they took office and it changed only when the agreement was reached at St. Malo.

Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, last November, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie, was asked by a Conservative Defence spokesman why the European rapid reaction force was being created outside rather than inside NATO? He replied:
	"I suppose it could have been done within the Nato framework and in some ways it would have been easier."
	He went on to say that politicians had decided otherwise:
	"It was decided by the EU Governments that this was the way it would be done."

Michael Howard: I remember that telling answer, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of it. I was present at the meeting to which he refers.
	I have some questions for the Minister for Europe. Why does not the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe have the right to attend meetings of the European Union military committee, as the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs suggested? It would be an important method of maintaining proper links between the EU and NATO. We have been told more than once, however, including by Foreign Office officials when giving evidence to the Select Committee, that the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe does not have the right to attend military committee meetings.

Roger Casale: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman arguing that the United States Government should have a veto over Britain's national defence policy? If not, why does he argue that the Americans should have a brake on European defence co-operation?

Michael Howard: That may be an example of the authentic voice behind the desire for European defence co-operation outside NATO. We cannot have it both ways. I do not believe that there is any question of an American veto. We are an independent country, and we can make decisions on the disposition of our defence capability. We have decided that our principal alliance is NATO. That should continue, and we should do nothing to put it at risk. I therefore object to the current developments, which put the Alliance in direct peril.

Peter Tapsell: The real danger of the arrangements is not that the Americans would veto a European operation, but that Europeans would go ahead with an operation that involved British troops and find, as so often happens in military operations, that things go wrong, troops are over-extended and at risk. At the critical moment when we needed heavy artillery and large tanks, we would not have the lift capacity to reinforce operations. We would be in a hopeless predicament if we went ahead with major operations anywhere without American support.

Michael Howard: As usual, my hon. Friend has reached the heart of the matter. I agree with him.

Andrew Miller: I shall read out a sentence:
	"The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".
	That is from article 17 of the Nice treaty. As a distinguished lawyer, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how his arguments fit the phrase "shall not prejudice"?

Michael Howard: Those are empty words. One can say that an arrangement will not prejudice something, yet commit actions that clearly prejudice it.

Andrew Miller: Next time I speak to a lawyer, I shall remember that.

Michael Howard: The hon. Gentleman is being ridiculous. Aspects to which the Government have signed up will prejudice and imperil the NATO alliance.

John Bercow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to confirm that there has been no change in the military or strategic logic of the situation that could in any way justify the about-turn that the Prime Minister has performed? Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think it probable, in so far as he can penetrate the inner recesses of the Prime Minister's mind, that that change of heart has taken place on the cynical basis that it will be a sop to those in the European Union who think that he is dragging his feet on the euro?

Michael Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes an important point that is particularly relevant to our plain-speaking Minister, who I am sorry to see finds it so amusing. It is relevant for the following reason. There is no doubt that there has been a change of policy. We have examined the texts in the House on numerous occasions. We can look at what the Prime Minister said when he came back from Amsterdam in 1997. We then find that he agreed at St. Malo to something that he had criticised in absolutely stringent terms on his return from Amsterdam. There is no doubt at all that there has been a volte face—a complete change in policy.
	According to the edicts of our plain-speaking Minister, the Prime Minister should have come to the House and said, "We have changed our position. We have reconsidered things. When I said what I did when I came back from Amsterdam, I was wrong. This is our new position, and these are the reasons for it." Of course, we have never heard any such explanation. Instead, we see convoluted attempts to pretend that there has been no change. I cannot believe that those attempts will find any favour with our plain-speaking Minister. Obviously, they do not match up at all with the speech that he is going to make later, so I expect that, when he comes to the Dispatch Box, he will at last provide us with an explanation of this change in the Government's position. "Yes," he will say, "we have changed our position, and these are our reasons for doing so." I look forward to that.
	Let me return to my questions. So far, I have asked my first question, which was about the right of DSACEUR to attend meetings of the military committee.

Gisela Stuart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, then I really must make some progress.

Gisela Stuart: I genuinely hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to help me or, if not, that the Minister will answer my question in the wind-up. As I understand it, the true relationship between NATO and the EU force can be assessed only in terms of practicalities. If we had access to annexe 7 and the weapons catalogue attached to the treaty of Nice, which I understand is not in the public domain, we could obtain a true indication of how the relationship would work in practice. Will either the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the Minister address that point?

Michael Howard: I am not sure how to respond to the hon. Lady. I would certainly have no objection if the Minister were to respond to her question when he winds up the debate. I do not know to what extent the information to which she refers is secret or sensitive, and therefore ought not to be in the public domain, but whether or not it ought to be in the public domain, it cannot possibly be argued that we should maintain a Trappist silence on these matters simply because certain information relating to military equipment has not been made public. We have to comment, and use our judgment as representatives of those who have sent us here, on the information at our disposal. That is what I am trying to do.
	I come to my second question to the Minister. We are constantly assured that it is everyone's intention that the NATO arrangements and the European Union arrangements should be linked at every point and be as close together as possible. Discordant French voices can occasionally be heard pointing out that that is not what has been agreed, but British Government spokesmen constantly say, "No, they are to work hand in glove." If that is the case, will the Minister please explain why the chairman of the European military committee, General Haggland of Finland, and the chairman of the Political and Security Committee, Mr. Anders Bjurner of Sweden, come from non-NATO member states of the European Union? Is the Minister going to tell us that that is pure coincidence? Even a plain-speaking Minister might stretch the Committee's credulity just a little too far if he said that. I would like an answer to that question.
	My third question is: why does the presidency report on the European security and defence policy make particular reference to encouraging the involvement of Russia, Ukraine and Canada in European Union-led operations? As the Committee will have observed, there is no mention of the United States. Perhaps there is an entirely innocent explanation for that omission. If so, no doubt our plain-speaking Minister will provide it.

Roger Casale: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Howard: Yes, but probably for the last time. I must conclude.

Roger Casale: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way a second time. I am listening closely to his argument, but I am still not sure what he is afraid of. Is he arguing that any and every example of European defence co-operation would necessarily undermine NATO, or that there might be a particular instance of European defence co-operation that would, in a given set of circumstances, undermine NATO? If it is the latter, it would be open to the Government not to co-operate—they surely would not—precisely because, in that given set of circumstances, NATO would be undermined.

Michael Howard: My argument is that setting up separate military arrangements for the EU that duplicate existing arrangements in NATO is unnecessary and perilous not only for NATO, but for the transatlantic relationship, which has been such a powerful force for good in the world over at least the past 50 years.
	This morning, some of us were privileged to listen to General Ralston, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He explained very clearly how those dangers and difficulties could be mitigated. He explained how the planning processes could be carried out at his headquarters by those nations that are represented there, including the non-NATO members of the EU. He explained very clearly how those difficulties could be dealt with and overcome.
	General Ralston said that he put such a proposal to his political masters and that it has not thus far found acceptance, although it has been on the table for many, many months. He said that he had hoped that it would find acceptance at the Foreign Ministers meeting last December, but it did not. He said that he had hoped that it would find acceptance at the Foreign Ministers meeting in May, but it did not. He said that he thought that the present state of affairs, and I quote him verbatim, is
	"close to the edge of going too far".
	He said that he is
	"very worried about the prospects."
	Those are not words to be taken lightly from SACEUR.
	At the meeting, General Ralston was asked about intelligence arrangements. Of course, there are limits to what we can say in public about intelligence arrangements. We all understand that, but we all know that one of this country's greatest assets is the closeness of its intelligence relationship with the United States of America.
	It does not require any disclosure of damaging information to express a concern that, in view of some of what is widely reported as having happened in recent years, the United States might be a little worried about continuing to share its intelligence with us if it thinks that that intelligence will automatically be passed to every EU member. We asked General Ralston what progress had been made in discussing intelligence sharing in the new world into which the Government are taking us. He said that, so far, there had been no such discussions. I am afraid that the concerns that many of us have been expressing, inside and outside the House, ever since St Malo are more and more justified with every step that is taken down this perilous road.

William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way for one second?

Michael Howard: Yes, but it will be for the last time.

William Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend may or may not know that immediately before the House rose for the general election a document was put before the European Scrutiny Committee. We did not have a chance to consider it properly, but it stipulated that a new European satellite surveillance system would be created, which was clearly intended to be in direct competition with the existing arrangements. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would like to have a look at it later.

Michael Howard: I shall. I did not know about the proposal; I hope that the Select Committee will consider it, and that the Minister will tell us something about it when he winds up the debate.
	The present situation is fraught with danger, which is enhanced by the United Kingdom Government's tendency to pretend that nothing new has happened, that there has been no departure from previous policy and that nothing has changed. I hope that the plain-speaking Minister will come clean, and at least give us the Government's explanation of why they have changed their position and why we have embarked on such a perilous course.

Mark Hendrick: I am surprised at the degree of what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) described as hype and spin. It is supposed to be coming from this side of the House, but it is actually coming from the other side. It is as if the treaty represented the end of the world as we know it—as if it would lay the nation bare and make it defenceless and vulnerable to threats from around the globe. In fact we are talking about an ideal piece of co-operation, aimed at enhancing European security and making it less dependent on American involvement in European problems.
	There also seems to be a sheer abhorrence of qualified majority voting. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred constantly to the appointment of Javier Solana, whom he claimed to have been an opponent of NATO for seven years. For some strange reason, after being an opponent of NATO for seven years, Javier Solana was appointed Secretary-General of NATO. That would indeed seem a strange appointment. I should be interested to hear first what evidence the hon. Gentleman has to support his statement that Javier Solana was an opponent of NATO, and secondly what he did as Secretary-General that put us all at risk.

William Cash: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to an article that I contributed to The Times—I cannot remember the precise date, but it was several years ago—which followed a great deal of research into this question. At the time, a petition was presented to President Clinton by some 130 congressmen suggesting that Solana should not be given the post. Furthermore, I had discussions with our then Secretary of State for Defence, and with the Prime Minister by fax, during the weekend before the appointment. All this has quite an interesting little history, but I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to read the article.

Mark Hendrick: A petition from some American congressmen is hardly convincing evidence that Mr. Solana was not fit to be appointed Secretary-General. Nevertheless, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has his views.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that in some way Mr. Solana was not accountable, or would not be accountable under the new arrangements involving QMV, in respect of his appointment as head of CFSP and our foreign affairs spokesperson in Europe.

William Cash: Not our spokesman.

Mark Hendrick: Well, the European Union foreign affairs spokesperson. The hon. Gentleman suggested that he was not accountable, when in fact he can be called to the European Council of Ministers whenever it so wishes.
	There is further opposition to QMV in the light of the experience with Jacques Santer. As we discussed in a previous debate, his appointment was supported unanimously at the Council of Ministers and he was a disastrous head of the European Commission. He presided over chaos in the European Union and, like his colleagues, was persuaded to resign and stand down. Had unanimity not been used at that time, we would have had a different head of the European Commission: one appointed by a majority of Ministers, one who would have been the highest common denominator and a good head of the European Commission, rather than the lowest common denominator, which Mr. Santer turned out to be.
	On decision making through QMV, the Opposition talk about the development of a European superstate and some cumbersome, lumbering superstructure, but qualified majority voting is the very mechanism that will maintain flexibility within the European Union, streamline decision making, and allow a majority of member states that wish to pursue a particular line not to be held up by tiddler nations that may wish to block everything. It is a recipe for flexibility at a time when unanimity is clearly outdated. Opposition Members' comments therefore surprise me.
	What also surprises me is the number of contradictions that we hear from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Stone, who unfortunately is not with us at the moment, referred to the Prime Minister mentioning 65,000 troops in a speech. Then he said that the figure was reduced to 60,000. Now he asserts that it may be anything up to 240,000. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said that there was no commitment, no weaponry, no personnel—it was a phantom army. Which is the truth? Is it a phantom army? Will it be a European army of 60,000 or 240,000 troops?

Patrick Mercer: The truth is that none of the British troops is dedicated to the task in hand. They are all double or triple-hatted at a time when our defences are already horribly overstretched. No combat power is being added; there are merely staff officers.

Mark Hendrick: That proves my point. It is not a European army, as the Opposition put it. It is not a standing army. No troops are permanently engaged in a particular task. An army will be assembled with the consent of nation states when the need arises. We did not have a force ready and willing to move in when the trouble started in Bosnia, which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, if it is not meant to be a European army, the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, who presumably should know something about all this, said that it would be a European army?

Mark Hendrick: I will quote from the treaty. It explicitly states:
	"This does not involve the creation of a European Army. The commitment of national resources by Member States to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions."
	What Mr. Prodi said may have been lost in translation.

Denzil Davies: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. It is not a European army, but would he like it to become a European army?

Mark Hendrick: Personally, I would not. There is a role for a European force that can act—again I quote from the treaty—on
	"humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking".
	That is where it differs from, for example, United Nations forces. Often—one or two hon. Members have alluded to it—forces go in to keep the peace, but are not given instructions or the ability to make the peace. They are used in a purely defensive role. We saw, however, how such an arrangement failed in our early attempt in Bosnia, and we would certainly not like a repetition of that. I believe that the treaty and the proposed forces would preclude the possibility of a repetition.

Michael Howard: Could the hon. Gentleman perhaps give us an example of an operation that could not be described as peace making? Does he recall that the Suez operation, for example, was described as peace making? It was embarked upon, so we were told, to separate the combatants of the time, the Israelis and the Egyptians. Indeed, the world wars were described as peace making. Can he therefore give us an example of an operation that would be outside the definition of peace making?

Mark Hendrick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Suez crisis, during which I was but a twinkle in my mother's eye. Indeed, my father just missed being called up for it. As I was not around at the time of that conflict, I cannot speak about it from personal experience. However, I believe that there is an element of peace making in most conflicts. The problems arise when, for example, troops in blue berets are sent into a situation but are given little direction by the United Nations Security Council on how to engage the opposition and on whether they can effectively conduct offensive operations to force those who are causing the conflict to retreat and cease their action. That type of arrangement is different from the one being proposed.
	We have to address the issue of establishing a peacemaking force. We would have liked to have such a force in Bosnia, but we did not have the capability to deploy one. We should be working towards establishing that capability, without having to rely totally on the Americans.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is digging himself into a very deep hole. Is he suggesting that if the European army had been available at the outbreak of hostilities in Bosnia, the right thing to do would have been to send our troops and other troops into that very tense situation, to try to fight to a conclusion that might have produced a transitory peace, without American air cover and American heavy lift? I think that he would endanger our soldiers greatly with such a proposal.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am not saying that we should have done that. I am saying that it would have been useful to have that option at the time. Moreover, what would have happened if the Americans had not become so involved in that conflict? We would not have had anywhere near the capability necessary to bring about peace. I was in Washington when the Serbs were beginning to lose the war in Bosnia and the Croatian troops were moving forward. I was fed information to the effect that many of the events of that time were occurring because Germany was secretly arming the Serbs, with America providing some of the resources for that armament. Bosnia is a perfect example of how we might in future use the proposed capability.
	I was surprised to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe suggest that the United States should have a veto over European operations in Europe. That suggestion is preposterous; it is a little like the European Union objecting to the use of American forces in Panama. Such a veto is simply inconceivable and does not bear thinking about. It is also quite strange to cite a veto as a spanner in the works of implementing and operating the Nice treaty.

Michael Howard: The hon. Gentleman persists in misrepresenting the point that I was making. It is precisely because I do not think that there is any realistic prospect of an American veto of the type to which he referred that I think that the arrangements are completely unnecessary. The only situation in which we need to have arrangements outside the NATO framework is one in which we fear an American veto. I do not fear an American veto, which is why I say that the arrangements should take place within NATO.

Mark Hendrick: The Government do not fear an American veto, but we must provide for circumstances in which some European states, particularly those in the European Union, wish to take action but the Americans, who are undoubtedly the most influential member of NATO, do not. That provision is outlined in the treaty. If we do not need it but it is there anyway, I do not know why the Opposition are opposed to it.

Roger Casale: Like my hon. Friend I was not around at the time of the Suez crisis—apparently, unlike many Opposition Members—but I am sure that my hon. Friend knows his history. Does he share my sense of irony at the mention of the Suez crisis by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as the conclusion that the Conservative party under Harold Macmillan drew from the failure of Suez was that Britain could not act alone in the world? It therefore changed its policy on Europe and that led directly to Britain's first application, under a Conservative Prime Minister, to join the European Community.

Mark Hendrick: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose recollection of history is certainly better than mine.
	I now turn to the idea of NATO choosing not to be engaged and the areas in which NATO may take action. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe quoted a French general. Perhaps that was the only example that he could come up with of an issue on which the French and every other member state that signed up to the treaty were at some variance. Throughout the passage of the International Criminal Court Bill, senior British military personnel said that they felt uneasy about it. They are entitled to their opinions, but at the end of the day the decisions are made by politicians with the advice of generals, but not necessarily with their agreement.

Michael Howard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. Does he really suppose that the person whom he describes rather dismissively as a French general and who is in fact the chief of the French defence staff would utter opinions on this topic without the approval and authority of the French Government whom he serves? I was not referring to some French general, but to the chief of the French defence staff.

Mark Hendrick: When I hear the same statement from the French Government, it will have some credibility. In the same way, when British leaders of the armed forces express concerns about the operation of the International Criminal Court Bill we should take them seriously, but we should not take their words as being the words of the Government.
	The world is moving on and the solutions for the 20th century are not solutions for the 21st century. China will continue to become even more dominant, and the US will be seeking to gain advantage through the national missile defence system. Europe should rightly have a defence capability, but not an army.

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Sir Alan, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this crucial debate concerning the future direction of Britain's relationship with the European Union. For decades, this place, the mother of Parliaments, has seen its powers eroded. The treaty that we are debating today would carry that process further. I believe that it is the duty of every hon. Member to ensure that the House continues its proud traditions and ways. No move to sideline or undermine it should be countenanced. The House must remain sovereign.
	My journey to Parliament has been long and eventful. I held my first elected position in 1990, when I became a councillor in the Chase Cross ward of the London borough of Havering. I secured a Conservative gain from the Liberal Democrat party. The Conservative share of the vote was 21 per cent., and in 1998 I increased that to 88 per cent., making Chase Cross the safest Conservative ward in Greater London. It is appropriate to thank those colleagues alongside whom I served on Havering council for their support and encouragement over the past 11 years.
	Some of my other forays into electoral politics have been less successful, although no less rewarding. In my first parliamentary campaign in 1992, I contested the constituency of Glasgow, Provan. Despite a 0.1 per cent. swing in my favour, I secured the lowest share of the vote of any Conservative candidate in Great Britain. In 1997, I fought the Thurrock constituency, which is slightly closer to home. A Labour majority there of 1,000 turned into one of 17,000.
	At the last election, I am pleased to have fared rather better. A 9.2 per cent. swing in my favour meant that my result in Romford on 7 June represented the largest swing back to the Conservatives, and it was achieved with the party's 11th highest share of the vote.
	For me, there can be no greater privilege and honour than to be elected to serve as the Member of Parliament for my home town of Romford. I should like to pay tribute to those who have preceded me. First and foremost, I thank Sir Michael Neubert, who served my constituency faithfully and assiduously between 1974 and 1997. The advice and friendship that I have received from Sir Michael and Lady Neubert over 20 years has been invaluable. Along with all the people of Romford, I owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.
	I shall always remember Sir Michael for the robust support that he gave to Oldchurch hospital, and for the enormous amount of work he did to help people throughout my constituency. I joined the Conservative party at the age of 14. I never dreamed, as I campaigned for Sir Michael's re-election, that one day I might succeed him as the next Conservative Member of Parliament for Romford.
	This speech would not be complete without some mention of Sir Nicholas Bonsor, who represented the Upminster constituency from 1983 to 1997. The Ardleigh Green and Nelmes areas of that constituency are now included in Romford. Sir Michael Neubert and Sir Nicholas Bonsor served the people of my constituency well for a long time. Speaking as a resident of Havering, I place on record my heartfelt thanks to them.
	I should also like to thank my immediate predecessor, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, who served my constituency in the previous Parliament. She will be remembered for her commitment to campaigning for improved health services in Havering.
	Many friends, organisations and colleagues, as well as my mother and father in particular, have contributed to my being able to stand before the House today. I also extend a special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who provided me with many formative political experiences, including the directorship of Europe's pre-eminent public policy think tank, the European Foundation.
	I have also to thank the former Member for Ilford, North, Vivien Bendall, for whom I worked for more than 10 years as a parliamentary researcher. No less deserving of thanks are my fellow members of the International Young Democrat Union, of which I am proud to be chairman, not least because the chairman of the union's parent body, the International Democrat Union, is my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition. My work in the IYDU has taken me to almost every country in Europe and to every continent and has been invaluable in helping me build knowledge of international affairs, especially those of Europe.
	I also express my immense gratitude to Baroness Thatcher. Her leadership and courage as Prime Minister were my rallying call to the Conservative cause. During her visit to Romford two days prior to the general election—the last of her campaign tour—she rightly received a rapturous reception.
	Lastly in this section of my speech, I want to challenge the reports found in the popular press that Spike, my Staffordshire bull terrier, was the real victor of Romford. While I freely admit, Sir Alan, that Spike was a prominent member of my campaign team and that his dogged determination to demonstrate the bulldog spirit proved popular in my constituency, may I reassure you that Spike has no immediate plans to take his seat on these Benches?
	I would now like to describe the historic market town of Romford—a place that I am proud to call my birthplace, my home and my constituency. Although it falls within the boundaries of Greater London, being situated in the London borough of Havering, Romford is by its history and geography very much part of the county of Essex. Many families moved to the town from east London in the aftermath of the second world war, and to this day Romford retains close ties with the areas from which they originated. The regular commuter trains passing through the town long ago replaced the horse-drawn carriages for which Romford was for centuries a main stopping-off point.
	Romford is today a major office and retail centre for Essex and north-east London and boasts one of the largest and best open-air markets in the country—a market now in its eighth century and very much the beating heart of the town. More than a century after the market first began to trade, the church of St. Edward the Confessor was built in the centre of the market. That is where the present church building stands today, with its imposing spire towering high above the commercial centre. St. Edward's has a special meaning to me, being the church in which I was christened and confirmed, and a little further along the road in the high street is where I spent my early years on Sundays at the Salvation Army citadel.
	King Edward the Confessor is the first notable person to have had a connection with Romford, occupying the royal palace at Havering-Atte-Bower, a picturesque village steeped in history situated at the most northerly tip of my constituency. High above the town of Romford, Havering-Atte-Bower overlooks Essex to the east, the River Thames and Kent to the south and Dagenham and London to the west. To the south of Havering village lie the suburbs of Chase Cross, Rise Park, Mawneys and Collier Row, which at one time housed the agricultural suppliers of vegetables and dairy produce and, as the community of north Romford, is now the home to more than a third of my constituents.
	Rush Green, the place of my birth, lies to the west of the constituency, along with the London road, the home of Romford's famous greyhound stadium, and the Brooklands area, once the home of Romford football club. I hope that one day in the not-too-distant future Romford will again proudly compete with the greatest clubs in our national game. Today, Romford FC has a Member of Parliament who will fight its corner.
	Marshall's Park, where I have lived all my life, lies just north of the town centre. It is also home to my school, which has the same name. Nearby is the garden suburb of Gidea Park, an estate designed by famous architects from the early 20th century. Squirrels Heath and Heath Park comprise the area of the town that borders Hornchurch, a small part of which—Ardleigh Green and Nelmes—falls within the boundaries of the Romford constituency.
	The people who live in these areas are deeply patriotic. Last year, for example, when the local Labour council refused to fly the Union flag from the town hall, virtually all the market traders displayed the flag on their stalls in protest. With my support, their successful protest became a symbol of Romford's determination not to turn its back on a sense of national pride. It is that same sense of determination that I bring with me to Parliament.
	I want to outline some of the issues that I will emphasise and campaign on during my time in Parliament—issues that were brought up time and again by the voters of Romford during my campaign. We live in the most free and stable democracy in the world, yet our freedom and our democracy are challenged by a relentless slide into a European political union.
	The task of redefining Britain's relationship with Europe and thereby re-establishing self-government for our nation is the most fundamental question of our time. Over the past 30 years, successive British Governments have subjected their citizens to a form of higher law, a law determined not simply beyond our shores but beyond our democratic ability to decide. The betrayal of our historic institutions and processes can and must stop. In particular, we must never give away control of our currency.
	The treaty of Nice is no exception to the continuing demise of our nation's ability to govern itself. To ratify this treaty would mean yet another attack on our democracy and on our freedom as a nation. The proposed loss of a further 43 vetoes is evidence of that.
	I am very enthusiastic about trading links formed and greater co-operation championed with the countries of eastern Europe. My international work on behalf of the Conservative party has brought me into close contact with so many eastern European countries. I know that they want a dynamic, free-trading relationship with Britain and, indeed, the rest of Europe. However, I am concerned that the treaty will do more to damage than to strengthen their economies. It makes no sense, for example, that a treaty proclaiming to be about enlargement to the east fails to make a single provision for reforming the common agricultural policy when eastern European economies are predominantly agricultural. It is clear that this treaty is about deepening as well as enlarging the European Union. However, Europe needs an open, flexible and outward- looking relationship, not ever deeper centralisation of power.
	One of the other things that motivated me and, I am sure, many others, to enter politics is the desire to reverse a shameful paradox. Those who have contributed most to our society—the elderly—are among its poorest and most badly treated members. After they have spent their lives working, caring and even fighting for our country, far too many pensioners suffer the daily indignities of low incomes, substandard accommodation and hospital waiting lists. The closure of old people's homes is becoming an all-too-regular occurrence, with several in my borough threatened. I condemn Havering's Labour administration for this heartless and short-sighted policy. Taken together with Labour's shameful disregard and failure to deliver on the health service, with particular reference to Oldchurch hospital in my constituency, it is our old folk who have suffered most.
	I also want to help to reinject substance back into what it means to be British. I do not mean a Britishness narrowly defined, but one wide enough to encompass all the people of this great nation. I have arrived in this place because of my beliefs: a belief in our nation and a belief in freedom. With the continued advice and friendship of so many who have helped me during the 35 years of my life, I look forward to serving Romford, Parliament and my country.

James Purnell: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). A couple of my hon. Friends have mistaken me for him in the Corridors, but I can tell that we shall probably not agree on a huge amount over the next few years. However, I pay tribute to him on his maiden speech for his humour, his conviction in his views and his obvious pride in his birth place and the town that he represents. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing him the best for a successful parliamentary career.
	I am extremely grateful to you, Sir Alan, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on Europe. I should like to start by saying a few thank yous: first, to members of the Stalybridge and Hyde Labour party for selecting me as their candidate, and, secondly, to the voters of Stalybridge and Hyde for returning me to Parliament; but most of all, on behalf of both of those groups, I thank Tom Pendry for his service to the constituency over 30 years.
	It is common and traditional for Members in my position to pay tribute to their predecessors as good constituency MPs, but I doubt that many have had part of their constituency named after their predecessor. Tom Pendry square in Stalybridge will stand as a reminder of the exceptional work that he did for his constituents, who are now my constituents, and in particular of the leading role that he played in attracting £30 million of investment to the town to bring it back to life.
	Members on both sides of the House will remember Tom not just for his humour and love of the good life but for his time as a Whip and as an Under-Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office. They will remember him for his dedication to issues associated with sport and tourism and for his participation in debates in the House, but in Stalybridge and Hyde, Tom will be remembered as a friend, an ally and a fighter.
	Members will also remember that before coming to the House Tom was the colonial boxing champion, so, at least until the last general election campaign, he could lay claim to having the most famous right hook in the Chamber. Now that that title has passed on, I must report that Tom has also been overshadowed locally by Ricky Hatton from my constituency, who last week successfully defended his light-welterweight world title for the first time. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating him and in passing on our best wishes to Tom for an active and successful future.
	Other than Tom, Stalybridge and Hyde is probably best remembered politically as the venue for Hugh Gaitskell's speech immediately after the 1952 Labour party conference at which Herbert Morrison and Hugh Dalton were voted off the national executive. Last weekend, I was speaking to Councillor Jim Wainwright, who picked Gaitskell up from the station that day. He told me that on the way to the conference he asked Gaitskell what he was going to speak about. Gaitskell replied that he was going to launch a counter-attack against the Bevanites and, in effect, accuse up to a sixth of them of being communist fellow travellers.
	Councillor Wainwright stopped the car, turned to Gaitskell and told him in language that I could not possibly repeat in the House that he might as well get straight back on the train and go back to Leeds. Apparently the only way that Gaitskell could persuade Councillor Wainwright to drive on was by saying that he had already released his remarks to the press, so he might as well go ahead and make them. I am afraid that spin was alive even then.
	I hope that I shall receive a milder reception this afternoon than Gaitskell received that day. In his diaries, he speaks of the speech being, for him, "unusually violent". He adds:
	"At the time, most of my friends were horrified. They thought I would lose a great deal of support."
	Most of the Labour party hated it, and hundreds of resolutions were sent in criticising him.
	I hope also that my party will remember the lessons of those events. It is vital that in our second term we find a way to allow debate, discussion and even criticism within our party. However, there should be no place in our party for talk of counter-insurrections or coups; nor should we ever forget the importance of the unity of purpose that got us where we are today.
	Apparently, after making his speech Gaitskell offered to return to my constituency later to make amends. The offer was politely refused, but if he were to return today he would barely recognise Stalybridge and Hyde. At the peak, there were more than 50 mills in my constituency; today, there are only two. More than a third of the population worked in those mills; today, barely a handful do. Most of the rest of the work force were employed in manufacturing in famous factories throughout the north-west; today, almost all of those factories have gone. The last to go was Gallagher's, which closed in 1997; I think that more than a 1,000 jobs were lost in the chase for Government subsidies in Northern Ireland.
	My constituency has known hard times and unemployment, but one thing that Gaitskell would find has not changed since his day is the people of Stalybridge and Hyde. They continue to pride themselves on being blunt, straightforward even; and they pride themselves on their self-reliance and hard work. The people of Stalybridge and Hyde, Dukinfield, Mossley and Longdendale refused to lie down and suffer the closures. They were determined to fight back, community by community, village by village, street by street, family by family, to overcome the closures and to attract new companies and jobs. I am delighted to be able to say that they succeeded. Stalybridge and Hyde are now thriving towns. At barely 3 per cent., the unemployment rate is less than the national average. Firms in my constituency export chemicals, plastics and industrial machinery all over the world. I am extremely proud of the fact that my constituency has one of the highest rates of manufacturing employment in the north-west.
	If there is one image I should like to leave hon. Members with this afternoon, it is not of our beautiful countryside, although I believe that Werneth Low, the Longdendale valley and the hills around Mossley rival anywhere in the country; it is the people of Stalybridge and Hyde that I want the House to remember. Jay McLeod, a vicar in Micklehurst, is breathing new life into his community and using basketball to give young people an alternative to crime. The teachers in the sure start project in Hattersley are working to give the children of that neglected council estate at least the chance of an equal start in life. Barry Cooke, the retiring head teacher of Hyde technology school, showed by turning that school around that no matter the deprivation facing the local community, it is still possible to have high expectations of every child and match the results achieved in the rest of the country.
	That is why I am so proud to represent Stalybridge and Hyde. The people of my constituency have shown that the best way to respond to change is not to suffer it, nor to resist it, but to welcome it and be in its vanguard so that we can shape it to our ends. We believe that every individual should have the chance to fulfil himself, but people can do so only through an active and enabling state. Those are the people for whom I will fight in my time in Parliament. I will fight for better public services and higher pay. Most of all, I will fight, fight and fight again so that Stalybridge and Hyde is given its fair share of resources, not out of pity or because of the problems we face but as a reward for our role as pioneers of change in the vanguard of Government policy.
	I am especially pleased to speak in today's debate on Europe. The most famous of Gaitskell's other speeches was the last he made before his tragically early death. At the Labour party conference he spoke of his fear that going into Europe would mean the end of 1,000 years of history. I can tell from this afternoon's debate that that view still has some supporters among Opposition Members, but during my time here I want to argue that it has been conclusively disproved. To people of my generation, the idea that Britain's interests are fundamentally opposed to Europe's is fanciful. The idea that Germany and France should be considered our enemies strikes them as beyond belief.
	I am not unlike many members of my generation in having spent a lot of my life in Europe. When I was two, I moved with my parents to France, where I went to school. As the cliché goes, some of my best friends are French. That has never made me any less patriotic or less proud to be British, but it has made be proud to be European. I am proud that we have lived in peace on this continent for nearly 60 years, and proud that, in the treaty that we are debating, we have the opportunity to let in the states of eastern Europe and lift the iron curtain that descended on our continent after the second world war. Most of all, I am proud that on this continent we have the opportunity to build a society that can stand as an alternative role model to American capitalism, an alternative voice in diplomatic debates and an alternative source of power.
	I remember going to Berlin the week that the wall came down. I have one burning memory from that trip of going to a church in east Berlin, which had been a centre of reform and resistance to the East German Government. I walked into the church where, all over the walls, people had pinned up bits of paper—poems, essays and letters—about their hopes for their new country. They were clear that they wanted to be free of authoritarian rule, but they were crystal clear that the acceptance of markets did not mean the acceptance of squalid public services, environmental damage and alienated communities. That is the challenge to which my generation must respond. We must live up to the hopes and aspirations expressed in that church, and build a Europe that is as dedicated to equality as it is to efficiency; a Europe that tries to build competitive markets, but also has successful public services and a fair welfare state to ensure that our prosperity is fairly distributed.
	Those are my politics. An activist in my constituency bet me that I would not use the word "socialist" tonight. Well, I just have, although personally I have never been afraid to call myself a socialist. Members who know what I was doing before I came to the House will probably not be surprised if I do not plan to incur the wrath of the Whips regularly. Having said that, I make no apology for tempering my discipline with a dose of idealism. I believe in a politics of hope, courage and opportunity. My Government have a historic chance to show that courage to transform our public services and our relationship with Europe. I thank the voters of Stalybridge and Hyde for giving me a chance to play a part along the way.

Patsy Calton: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). It is rare to hear such a human and humane speech in this place. His modesty was most pleasing and his reflective speech, which was delivered with humour, was very welcome.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. As may be expected, Liberal Democrat Members support the speedy ratification of the treaty of Nice. Without its reforms, it is difficult to see how a union of 28 states can come to an efficient and effective agreement about matters that will affect my constituents.
	I have the honour to represent the constituency of Cheadle, where I have lived and brought up my family for the past 27 years. It is in the nature of things that I have replaced Mr. Stephen Day, my predecessor, who represented the area for 14 years. I did not always agree with him, but I found him to be pleasant and civilised on the occasions we met. I know that he worked for his constituents, especially with regard to the Barlow Clowes collapse. They have told me how much they appreciated the compensation that they gained.
	The Cheadle constituency is not quite the same in terms of area or population as it once was when my late friend Dr. Michael Winstanley was its representative. However, what he said about the constituency in his maiden speech in 1966 is just as true today:
	"It is an area which in many ways reflects the country as a whole."—[Official Report, 12 May 1966; Vol. 728, c. 657.]
	Cheadle, which is regarded overall as a prosperous constituency, has suburbs, Manchester city estates and rich residential areas. It has greenbelt areas side by side with light and heavy industry. Incomes range from very high to very low.
	Cheadle is a beautiful constituency throughout the year, with tree-lined roads and excellent parks. Bruntwood park holds the prestigious green flag award. Bramall Hall is one of the foremost tourist attractions of the north-west and, indeed, of the country. My constituency has riverside and country walks with views over the Peak district.
	Perhaps just as important, we have a wealth of voluntary organisations and faith groups that all contribute to the well-being of the area. I expect that the recent census will demonstrate a significant increase in the ethnic and faith minority population. It is important for us to recognise and meet their wish to play a full part in the life of the wider community.
	Nowadays, Cheadle is a constituency that is overburdened with road traffic and suffering from a lack of regular, reliable public transport. It has the questionable distinction of having had a third of a road built by 1995—the central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road. However, the road failed to link the developing Manchester airport with anything. Indeed, the third of the MAELR that has been built serves simply to funnel in traffic through the villages of the constituency, with Woodford, Bramhall and Heald Green being particularly badly affected. They have traffic levels above those that normally trigger a determination in marginal constituencies to build bypasses.
	My constituents and I eagerly awaited the detailed proposals of the south-east Manchester multi-modal study—SEMMMS. I understand that it will tell us that the planners of 70 years ago were correct in their assumption that the entire road network needed to be built. The developing Manchester airport has no good transport links to the south-east, and my constituency suffers from car and freight traffic accessing the airport and the motorway network. My constituents' problems are compounded by the lack of regular or, in some parts, any good quality public transport. This is particularly hard on low-income families, those living in rural areas and an increasingly elderly population.
	My predecessor brought to the attention of the House the plight of the people of Chesters Croft, a small, idyllic hamlet made up of permanent mobile homes. At the public inquiry into the MAELR 10 years ago, those concerned were led to believe that they would be compensated for noise nuisance in a comparable way to other home owners. Over the past 10 years, there has been an abortive change in the law but still no compensation for my increasingly elderly constituents. They have a moral right to have their case considered and dealt with expeditiously. They believe that they may be forced to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
	Unfairness is the theme of my speech. Cheadle is one of the three and a half constituencies that make up the local government area of Stockport metropolitan borough council. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), with whom I share a boundary, is also a councillor in Stockport. Until recently, I was the deputy leader of Stockport council and its chair of social services.
	The problem that I wish to speak of is the unfairness of the Government grant and European funding system. A number of metropolitan authorities are in the same position. Every pensioner, every school child and every person on a low income in my constituency is affected every day by the blunt instrument of European and local government finance and the even blunter instrument that is the council tax.
	Stockport is the lowest spending metropolitan borough per head and yet we have a gap of £23 million between standard spending assessment levels and what we must spend to keep our education and social services spending near the average. Students at the Kingsway school in my constituency have funding of almost £1,000 a head less than students who attend a school with a similar catchment area that is located little more than a mile away in a neighbouring authority area. It is possible that the school where I am a governor, Bramhall high school, which has an excellent academic record, has the lowest per pupil spend in the country, despite the fact that a significant number of its students come from very low-income families.
	On the assumption that house prices in Stockport have increased at roughly the same rate as those in the region as a whole, Stockport's grant loss since 1990 has been estimated as 16.8 per cent., or some £4.5 million. That loss has occurred because there has been no revaluation. Data losses have amounted to £4 million this year, including £1 million on the area cost adjustment. In terms of that adjustment, it must be right for areas that have to pay salaries that are above the norm to be compensated, but such compensation should be based on actual and not finger-in-the-air costs.
	The waste disposal levy applied in Greater Manchester is apportioned on the council tax base and not in respect of tonnage. To put it crudely, the more that my constituents recycle while Manchester fails to do so, the more that they pay. Many of them are avid recyclers, so I am sure that they are happy that they are doing the right thing by the planet, but I am equally certain that they would be furious to know that they are paying more than they should, to make up for the less environmentally friendly habits of neighbouring authorities in Greater Manchester.
	Stockport metropolitan borough council is on a crusade to improve its services. It wishes to demonstrate that it can meet challenging improvement targets. The interests of consumers and citizens are at the heart of its vision to put people first, but the unfairness in the system of allocating grants from central Government and from Europe is making it extremely difficult to deliver the improvements. To put it bluntly, the grant is too low and the council tax is too high in my constituency. The averages of whole wards and boroughs that are used in formulae for national and European funding do not recognise extremes of wealth or poverty.
	The level of need that is acknowledged by social services in my constituency and in Stockport metropolitan borough as a whole far exceeds the funding allocated under the Government formula. Our schools produce excellent results on a shoestring. The majority of my constituents already pay more in income taxes than people in most other places. It should not be necessary for people on low incomes to pay extra for their council tax because Government and European grant aid is unfairly distributed. Those on low incomes should be remembered first by a Government who put social inclusion high on their agenda.
	I am grateful to the House for its attention. The Liberal Democrats do not regard the agreements reached at Nice as perfect or as the final word on the reform of European Union structures or policies. There is an agenda for reform in Europe which Britain can lead. We believe that the Government have a duty to galvanise debate among the citizens of the country.

Peter Hain: I welcome the hon. Member for Cheadle (Patsy Calton) to the House. I am certain that she will be a formidable fighter for Cheadle. I remember from my youth that the area has a long Liberal tradition. One of the Members of Parliament for Cheadle to whom she referred, Dr. Michael Winstanley, was extremely well known. I am sure that it is a great honour for her to follow in his footsteps and in those of the other predecessors whom she mentioned. She spoke about the unfairness and blunt instruments of European Union and local authority finance. I might add that those matters are not entirely the responsibility of a Foreign Office Minister, but I am nevertheless sure that the Government will take note of her concerns and seek to redress them as she continues to speak for her constituents.
	I hope that you, Sir Michael, will not mind if I express condolences to those on the Opposition Front Bench who, to a man and woman, backed the losing candidate in the Conservative leadership election, with the right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) coming top, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) second, and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) third. Long may the saga continue.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Lord: Order. I would rather the Minister did not give way on that point. We are getting far off the track.

William Cash: On a point of order, Sir Michael. My intervention concerns a defence matter, which is the issue that we are debating.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is entirely up to the Minister whether he chooses to give way, but we are moving well away from the subject.

Peter Hain: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
	The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) spoke confidently. I am sure that the town of Romford will be proud that one of its sons has spoken so strongly and movingly about his constituency. He engagingly gave us an electoral tour de force, taking in Glasgow, Provan, where he succeeded in getting the lowest Tory vote in the country, and going right the way through to his present constituency and home town of Romford, where his party saw its largest swing. He spoke about the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) having provided him with many formative political experiences, which will have given him a unique insight into the world. I am sure that he will benefit from that. At that point perhaps I should give way to the hon. Member for Stone.

William Cash: Further to the Minister's earlier comments, the shadow Minister for Defence is one of the final two in the ballot for the leadership of the Conservative party and I have no doubt that he wishes he was here in order to demolish the Minister's arguments.

Peter Hain: If and when the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green wins the leadership of the Conservative party, as the hon. Gentleman, who is a fervent fan, wishes, he will see his arguments on this issue, as on many others, demolished day after day in the House, and we look forward to that.
	I thank the hon. Member for Romford for paying tribute to his immediate predecessor, Eileen Gordon, who was indeed, as he said, a campaigner for the NHS.
	I have rarely seen a new Member speak with such confidence and poise in a maiden speech as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). He spoke almost without a note in the best traditions of the House, exemplified by the more senior right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He appropriately paid tribute to his predecessor, Tom Pendry, and his boxing prowess, which seems to be catching these days. He spoke poignantly about Hugh Gaitskell's speech and displaying unity of purpose, and promised to fight, fight and fight again for his constituents. I was pleased that he called himself a socialist in his maiden speech, which, as a Labour Minister, I am also proud to do.
	I do not want to detain the House too long because there are many issues to cover before 10 o'clock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) required me to seek enlightenment from officials—I always have to do so when he speaks—on a series of points about the treaty and the question of rights and obligations under the EU treaties that need to be given effect in UK law. The amendments to the EU treaty made by the treaty of Nice are, as he says, set out in article 1. They are not referred to in clause 1 as they do not give rise to community rights and obligations. As my right hon. Friend says, they amount to rights and obligations in international law. They are intergovernmental rather than Community in nature.
	Clause 1 refers not only to provisions in the Nice treaty that do not amend the Community treaties but to matters with which they deal, including amendments to the treaty on European Union. The provisions relate to matters covered by the Community—for example, the amendments to the provisions on enhanced co-operation. They are subject to the Ponsonby rule; accordingly, an explanatory memorandum has been provided to Parliament. The submission of the treaty to Parliament as a Command Paper and the debates on the Bill cover the requirement to give Parliament an opportunity to debate treaties before their ratification.
	I do not want to be uncharitable to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but his congratulations on my excellent speech make me wonder whether I should have got J. B. to redraft it or give me further advice. Whoever J. B. may be, he is an estimable member of the Foreign Office staff. My full speech is available on www.fco. gov.uk., but I do not believe that J. B.'s comments are on the Foreign Office website for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to inspect.
	If I have time, I shall be happy to deal with the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe in more detail, but they were Exoceted by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). His speech bore little resemblance to the reality of the common security and defence policy in the European Union or the Bill.
	The comments of the hon. Member for Stone on Javier Solana were badly informed and misdirected. Javier Solana is a respected representative of the EU. On the EU's behalf, he played an important role, which was welcomed by the Israelis, Palestinians and Americans, in the middle east peace process and in many other areas, not least the Balkans. The hon. Gentleman should inform himself better.
	The first group of amendments deals with the second and third pillars of the Maastricht treaty, or the treaty on European Union. They are: foreign affairs, defence, justice and home affairs. There is much confusion about defence and the Nice treaty; that was evident from the debates this afternoon and last week. Much misinformation has been circulated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said, a great deal of rubbish is talked. Some of it has been talked in large doses by Conservative Members. Let me set out the position once more in plain, ministerial English.
	The arrangements for the European security and defence policy are not in the Nice treaty. A declaration that is attached to the treaty makes it clear that it does not need to be effected for defence arrangements that have been agreed by EU member states to become operational.

William Cash: The Minister will remember that I made that precise point. The treaty basis is in the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. One of the problems with our debates is that we cannot specifically discuss the declaration.

Peter Hain: I shall continue to explain the position. I clearly need to do that for the hon. Gentleman.
	Before doing that, I shall respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) about Turkey. They search in vain for a false alibi from the USA when they oppose the modest EU initiative on developing a capability for peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention.
	Turkey has supported the development of the European security and defence policy. At the NATO ministerial meeting in December 2000, Turkey and other allies reaffirmed NATO's readiness to support ESDP and EU operations. Turkey also supported that policy at NATO's Foreign Ministers' meeting in Budapest two months ago in May. With other NATO allies, Turkey reaffirmed its commitment to a genuine strategic partnership between NATO and the EU on crisis management.
	Of course, Turkey has concerns about the policy, but the European Union's openness to the involvement of non-EU European NATO members such as Turkey is an important step towards addressing those concerns, some of which are legitimate. We shall continue to engage with Turkey to demonstrate that developing a strong EU-NATO relationship will strengthen the alliance and ensure that Turkish security interests are fully respected.
	The hon. Members for West Suffolk and for Stone asked about references to the Western European Union being removed from the treaty. The relationship with WEU has changed since the Maastricht treaty was agreed, and the deletion of references to WEU simply reflects reality. The hon. Member for West Suffolk will note that the reference in paragraph 4 of article 17 has been retained because it refers to political frameworks in which WEU is still involved, as opposed to operational issues in which it is not.
	The other new element in the treaty is a reference to the new Political and Security Committee, which is already up and running and to which the Council will now be able to delegate the running of a crisis management operation on instructions from capitals. I say to the hon. Member for West Suffolk that that does not—to use his term—duplicate NATO structures at all; the contrary is the case.
	It is hard to imagine from all the hot air that has been spoken that there is not an article somewhere in the treaty setting up a permanent Euro-army under the control of foreign generals who will frog-march our armed forces into campaigns of which neither we nor NATO want to be part. That is absolutely not the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) so convincingly argued, the European security and defence policy is about improving the military capabilities of European nations to conduct certain EU-led military operations—humanitarian, peacekeeping, crisis management—where NATO chooses not to be engaged. That answers virtually all the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe was also correct about the lessons of the Balkans. To be fair, Conservative Members have referred to that matter as well. The Balkans provide many insights into why this capability is needed.

Michael Howard: Will the Minister indicate a single reference in any of the texts to the phrase, "where NATO chooses not to be engaged"?

Peter Hain: That runs right through the whole initiative. It is what the initiative is all about. I shall quote from the text in a minute. It is repeatedly made absolutely clear that this initiative is complementary to, and welcomed by, NATO.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Peter Hain: No, I need to make some progress.

Michael Howard: rose—

Peter Hain: Right hon. and hon. Members have made long contributions and I need an opportunity to answer them briefly.
	I have some more plain speaking for the Conservative party: NATO is and will remain the cornerstone of Europe's collective defence. That is a fact. NATO is and will remain our first choice for managing crises: that is also a fact—more plain speaking. However hard Conservative Members scan the newspapers for sceptical quotes, the fact remains that NATO has long wanted Europe to take more responsibility and to improve its capability. That is what we are now doing, and NATO as a whole strongly supports it. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made some very telling points on that matter in last week's debate.
	For the avoidance of doubt, let me quote again—for Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Stone who do not seem to want to hear it—what the European Council agreed at Nice, not in the treaty, but in the report on European security and defence policy that was approved by all the Heads of State and Government at Nice:
	"This does not involve the establishment of a European army. The commitment of national resources by Member States to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions. As regards the Member States concerned, NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members . . . The development of the ESDP will contribute to the vitality of a renewed transatlantic link. This development will also lead to a genuine strategic partnership between the EU and NATO in the management of crises, with due regard for the two organisations' decision-making autonomy."
	It is important to place that quote on record, because one would not have imagined that to be true from the comments bearing no resemblance to reality that have sallied forth from the Opposition.

William Cash: The Minister has to answer just two simple questions. In this context, what does "autonomous" mean? It is clearly stated in the declarations and conclusions to which the Minister has referred, as well as in previous treaties. Secondly, why did Romano Prodi say that it did not matter whether we called it Margaret or Mary-Anne, it would still be a European army? Will the Minister answer those two simple questions now?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has exhaustively answered these questions in long debates on the matter. I read the text of treaties and of statements agreed at the inter-governmental conference, rather than random comments made by this or that European leadership figure.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked about parliamentary scrutiny of European security and defence policy initiatives. Of course we want to involve Parliament, and I will reflect on his arguments to see in what way they can sensibly be addressed.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about article 7 and the sanctions clause. The article was amended to introduce an early-warning mechanism. Surely it makes sense to establish that there is a risk of a breach of fundamental rights. This will give other member states the opportunity to make recommendations and, one would hope, avoid any breaches occurring.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked how we would assess whether a breach had occurred. That would be established by the European Council after it had considered the observations of the member state concerned.

Michael Howard: rose—

Peter Hain: Finally, the rights that we are talking about are those in article 6.1 of the treaty on European Union—the Maastricht treaty, as amended by the Amsterdam treaty. The charter of fundamental rights has no legal status and is not referred to in article 6.1. The hon. Member for West Suffolk need, therefore, have no worries on that count.

Michael Howard: Will the Minister give way?

Peter Hain: I was trying to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk, but of course I will give way.

Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at last. If he is serious about wanting to provide opportunities for Members to scrutinise the Bill, will he now answer the simple question that he said he would answer five minutes ago? Will he identify where in any of the texts to be agreed there is any reference to NATO's choosing not to be engaged—the phrase used by the Minister in his speech—before the European Union becomes engaged? Where in the texts does that language appear?

Peter Hain: I have answered this point, and it has been repeatedly answered in the House. So long as the right hon. and learned Gentleman chooses not to study the record of the debates in the House, I cannot help him further.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked about an update on Eurojust. The Tampere European Council in October 1999 agreed to set up Eurojust to improve co-operation between national prosecutors, aiding national criminal investigations into serious organised crime. Organised crime stopped respecting national boundaries long ago. We strongly support Eurojust and the benefits that it will bring in tackling organised crime more effectively. Improving judicial co-operation across the European Union will also help to ensure that serious organised crime is properly investigated and prosecuted.
	Eurojust will not involve, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk implied, interference by the EU in national investigations and prosecutions. It will not mean an end to British legal traditions. It will not be a body that investigates and prosecutes in its own right. It will not involve a centralised European public prosecutor. Investigations will continue to be conducted by national authorities. The role of Eurojust will be to aid cross-border investigations by ensuring the co-operation of national authorities. Eurojust is designed to crack down on international organised crime, to help to put an end to the misery caused by traffickers in drugs and human beings and to bring money launderers to book. I hope that we all support that.
	I should answer several other points that were raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. He asked why a person from a non-member of NATO—a Finn—is at the head of the European military committee. General Haggland was elected because of his extensive military experience and his competence. Simply put, he was the best person for the job. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked why the presidency report mentions co-operation with Russia, Ukraine and Canada, but not the United States. That represents recognition of the fact that the countries mentioned might want to join EU-led operations. Were the United States involved, an operation would of course effectively be a NATO operation.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the practical arrangements between the EU and NATO. As I have said before, the EU will not set up rival military structures to duplicate what already exists. The EU will use existing operational planning staff from NATO for EU operations using NATO assets. In addition, the NATO North Atlantic Council and the new EU Political and Security Committee will meet regularly to discuss co-operation and are already doing so. Four groups have been formed to consider detailed areas of co-operation and work is continuing to ensure EU access to NATO assets in an agreed fashion.
	The Government reject all the amendments and I commend the Government's position to the Committee.

Richard Spring: There is much to discuss further this evening, and although I thank the Minister for responding to the points that I made, I must tell him that we want to examine his responses with some care before returning to them.
	We have heard excellent speeches from a number of new Members. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), who discussed the snakes and ladders of political life in terms of majorities in local government, parliamentary elections and the recent and most impressive swing in his constituency. He spoke with affection of his predecessors, who overlapped in his constituency: Sir Michael Neubert and Sir Nicholas Bonsor, who were held in high regard in this place, and his immediate predecessor, Eileen Gordon, who spoke with great conviction on health matters.
	My hon. Friend referred to the bulldog spirit, and I hope and believe that he will show that spirit in his membership of the House of Commons. He described his constituency with great affection and talked about flying the Union flag. Romford clearly has an articulate Member of Parliament who will fly the flag for the constituency in the years to come.
	I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). I fought the neighbouring seat of Ashton-under-Lyne some years ago, so I know the area to which he referred. I also pay tribute to Tom Pendry, who was a friend of mine. He was highly regarded in the House and he had a particular knowledge of sport, so the whole Committee will be pleased at the hon. Gentleman's comments about Tom.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Gaitskell's links to the constituency and the change in the area's economic base. I certainly know of that from my own experience there—the number of mills has changed tremendously—but he also referred to the new businesses that are transforming the economy. He made a remark that struck me. In discussing his ideals, he used the word "socialism". He sits as a Government Member, so I very much hope that he will be able to sustain those ideals in this place in the years to come.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Patsy Calton) for her kind words about her predecessor, Stephen Day, with whom I shared an office when I first became a Member of Parliament. She described the great diversity of the constituency, which contains both affluent and poorer areas, and the congestion problems at Manchester airport, which affect her constituency. She showed clear affection for and knowledge of her area, and she is a fluent and competent speaker. I hope that she will make many more contributions in the House as Member for Cheadle.
	We have heard much about parliamentary accountability; no matter how one considers the role for the European rapid reaction force arising from the Nice treaty, we must consider pressing new clause 7 to a Division. We want to highlight the implications for the Western European Union, NATO and the future organisations as well as the UK's role therein. We believe that what was agreed at Nice poses serious threats to NATO, which is the organisation that has secured our peace and stability for more than 50 years. We tamper with it at our peril.
	A number of excellent speeches have been made, but I must allude to the brilliantly incisive contribution of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The fact of the matter is that what was achieved at Nice has nothing to do with enhanced defence capability or burden sharing or co-operation on defence procurement. It is about politics—the politics of the integration process of the European Union.

William Cash: I had wanted to press my amendment to a Division, because the matters that we have discussed are fundamental to the peace and security not only of the United Kingdom, but of Europe as a whole. Furthermore, for the reasons that I have given, which were elaborated on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), we have effectively dealt with the Minister's arguments, and I have absolutely no doubt that we shall continue to do so during our proceedings. However, although I do not want to avoid a Division, we have practical problems this evening to do with the result of the leadership election, which means that people are scattered in various places. No doubt some are rather happier than others.
	It is sensible and practical to deal with these matters when we debate clause stand part so that we can tackle the Minister's arguments in one fell swoop. I shall not press the matter to a Division now, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 11),'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 50, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 12),'.
	Amendment No. 51, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 13),'.
	Amendment No. 52, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 14),'.
	Amendment No. 234, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 11, sub-paragraphs (b) and (c))'.
	Amendment No. 56, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2 paragraph 1'.
	New clause 9—Enhanced cooperation (No. 1)—
	'Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a report showing the implication for the United Kingdom of Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Nice Treaty, amending Article 11 TEC, incorporating the effects of related Articles on enhanced co–operation in the TEC and TEU, including Article 1, paragraph 11 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 43 TEU.'.
	New clause 10—Enhanced cooperation (No. 2)—
	'The Government shall not take steps to participate in any proposals agreed under Article 1, paragraph 11 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 43 TEU, or related Articles in the Nice Treaty on enhanced co-operation in the TEC and TEU, including Article 2, paragraph 1 amending Article 11 TEC, without first having obtained the approval of each House of Parliament by resolution.'.
	And the following amendment thereto: (a), in line 1, leave out "take steps to".

William Cash: Enhanced co-operation, otherwise known as flexibility, is an important and fateful ingredient in the development of European Union politics. As with so many of these issues, it is a matter of lego-political power play and, as I said earlier and on Second Reading, it cannot be separated from qualified majority voting. Unfortunately, that is the mechanism whereby the eight member states that congregate at the centre of the proposed EU in relation to the functions arrogated to them will themselves operate in the framework of a QMV system. Therefore, as with economic and monetary union and the arrangements that led me to oppose the Maastricht treaty with such vigour, the locomotives are parallel to one another.
	The arrangement is as simple as this: the creation of an acquis communautaire in a legal framework will be sought and the process of enhanced co-operation or flexibility will work in that framework. In the example of monetary union, the centre point is created and a eurozone established. Then all the others are effectively dragged along with it. An example of that is the creation of the coins and notes. Thereafter everybody is conditioned to the idea. Those who are reluctant and are found to be outside the system are then, by a gravitational process, drawn into having to comply with the arrangements.
	I believe that the third protocol to the Maastricht treaty provided that no member state should prevent the others from going ahead. For practical purposes, that is reflected by the removal of what is known as the emergency brake. I am interested to know whether the distinguished right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) intends to speak, because I wish that this were not such an incredibly complex question—one that is given to lawyers and others to play around with. I refer to the question of enhanced co-operation, which constitutes a mixture of the use of law and the deepest and most sophisticated form of power politics that I have witnessed in all my dealings with the European Community and the European Union.
	I believe that many people are being gravely misled. A number of my colleagues, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, are being misled into believing that the notion of flexibility is somehow a good one. As I pointed out in a pamphlet that I wrote about a year ago—it was called "Associated But Not Absorbed", and called for an associated European area—the trend that has been established has done enormous damage to the democracy of other member states, especially in central and eastern Europe. Those states are being drawn into the acquis communautaire, while knowing all about the politics of it.
	As I said in an earlier speech on the Bill, the centre of gravity—indeed, I now go further and say "the domination of the entire European Union"—will be created by Germany's having a preponderant influence. That will be the case not just because of qualified majority voting—the countries dependent on Germany politically and economically will inevitably, in the real world, vote with her—but because the concept of flexibility is a driving force, a rocket thrust, in that direction.
	Enhanced co-operation stems, in fact, from the Amsterdam treaty. It is no excuse saying that it was not used on that occasion, because it is really a fancy new name for a two-speed Europe. Jacques Chirac summarised the proposal neatly:
	"A certain number of countries will have to get together to show the others the way."
	A sub-set of member states that wishes to proceed with further integration and to create an inner core will be allowed to do so.
	An obscure but very interesting paper was produced by Michael Mertes, who became Chancellor Kohl's chief policy adviser. He and I have had many discussions about these questions. The paper, written in 1988 or 1989, created a template for the idea of an inner and outer core of Europe. I pay tribute to Mr. Mertes and also to a gentleman by the name of Mr. Prill, who wrote the paper with him.
	The plan was a "concentric circles" plan, transparently intended to produce the kind of Europe that the flexibility arrangement in the Nice treaty actually represents. Hon. Members must grasp exactly what is going on, and not be taken in by a lot of the Euro-propaganda. The facts are all set out. At least those concerned had the honesty to do that, although many of their articles and papers appear in rather obscure journals. The other countries will be relegated to an outer core, and reverse integration is ruled out, because reversing the process would mean passing amendments that have themselves been described, effectively, as ruled out because this, like economic and monetary union, is regarded as an irreversible process. We are increasingly being locked in.
	Let me say this to Labour Members, with great respect. If they do not like aspects of these treaties, and if they do not want to be taken on a long train journey leading, in my view, to increasing chaos and uncertainty, they ought to speak out. They spoke out yesterday; I think they should speak out against this as well, because it will have serious consequences for many of the policies that they hold dear.
	Flexibility is the antithesis of what some so-called Eurosceptics hoped it would come to mean. In an Adjournment debate on the subject that I initiated as long ago as—I think—1995, I explained the dangers of what I described as a Heath Robinson system. I said that disconnected parts were being put together in a single system, which would create chaotic arrangements. I believe that we are heading for an increasingly dangerous and tense European Union.
	What should happen, of course, is this: individual nation states should be enabled to make their own decisions, but to work in co-operation rather than being put in the compression chamber of the acquis communautaire, as is now being proposed. Like subsidiarity, this whole process will promote ever deeper political centralisation. It will do nothing for diversity and decentralisation—although many claim that it might—because, like subsidiarity, it is a con trick. Individual nation states will possess no emergency brake or veto to prevent other member states from going ahead with further integration.
	I look forward to the remarks that I trust will be made, in due course, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). My hon. Friend's shoulders are now heaving in a Heath-like fashion. He knows perfectly well that the removal of the emergency brake presents something of a problem for those who have previously advocated the notion of flexibility—a problem that will not disappear simply because we wish things were otherwise.
	For the first time, it has been clearly stated that the whole purpose of enhanced co-operation is to reinforce the process of integration. That is an entirely new mission statement. Article 1 itself talks of ever closer union, and so forth. The minimum number of participants is eight, regardless of enlargement. The process will depend on eight member states making decisions relating to a range of policies and functions. The potential for chaos must be obvious to anyone. If there are 27 members in an enlarged Community and eight are driving the system, how on earth will it be possible—I return for a moment to our debate on defence and foreign policy—to secure the degree of consistency that is claimed for the proposed, and proclaimed, European political union? It is inherent in the arrangements that they will not achieve that objective: they will defeat the object of their own exercise, and at the same time create chaos. I fear for the European Community, or Union, for reasons like that.

Mark Hendrick: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how eight member states wishing to co-operate in dealing with, say, drugs and cross-border crime might affect the rest of the European Union if it did not wish to participate? The example is particularly pertinent. Clearly, if the case involved the single market, the single market would be distorted, but a minimum of eight states are taking action that does not affect any other member states in the European Union.

William Cash: I dealt with the single market in the context of enlargement in a previous debate and I do not think that you, Sir Michael, would want me to go back over that. The real point is that the potential for chaotic policy making, with 27 member states all having different ideas as to the direction in which to go but knowing that inner-core policy is being directed by eight member states, must be obvious to anyone. I do not need to repeat myself: the permutations are horrific.
	Some say that they welcome the move because it will destroy the European Union. I want a renegotiated Union with reduced functions in all areas of European government, which can be achieved without withdrawal if the Government are prepared to listen. The corollary is that the movement in the other direction, which is embedded in the proposals for enhanced co-operation, will produce a completely unworkable situation. If the whole European Union implodes as a result of the mistakes that are being made, I will accuse the Government—much as I like the Minister. The danger is that the move will cause serious damage and difficulty for the United Kingdom. We are embarked on a policy that is bound to cause chaos and damage to the British national interest.
	It is outrageous that we should be faced with these proposals. I am fascinated to know what the practical arguments are on which the Government seem to depend. I would like to know the philosophy that lies behind their decision to go along this route, because they could have vetoed the arrangements. They could even have stuck with Amsterdam, for heaven's sake, although I would have rejected that, too. In the blue paper that I wrote in response to the then Government's White Paper on the subject, I cut at the roots of the arguments, as I have sought to do for many years. There are some distinguished but misguided colleagues on the Conservative Benches who believe that variable geometry is the right way to go.
	As I pointed out in the pamphlet "Associated But Not Absorbed", it would be fine if flexibility were dissociated from the acquis communautaire, but once one assumes that the acquis communautaire will bite on the whole system, one is trapped. Indeed, that very White Paper—produced by the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and the Minister with responsibility for Europe—said that we must not be trapped into a two-speed Europe. That is exactly what this move has led to. The Government have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I am deeply concerned about it for all those reasons.
	If we think of the range of matters covered in the vast corpus of law that is being created—the treaties, the European Union single institutional framework within which the British parliamentary system and the voters, the people who matter, are being subsumed—it is enough to cause anyone sleepless nights. If the Government are going to say that they are going into a federal system, get on with it and say it. All the halfway-house proceeding by stealth is creating more and more uncertainty. For heaven's sake, let the Government come out of the closet and say, "We want a federal Europe." [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but the ingredients have developed since 1970.
	The Minister opposed such developments at the time; I am sure of it because of our discussions in the past. Indeed, I confess to having voted yes in 1975, but I did so on the basis of what was then on offer. The problem was and remains that each treaty is a separate, cumulative series of laws. Enactment of the treaties via Bills such as this one serves to implement the arrangements in our domestic law. One was entitled to say as the thing developed, "I think that this is acceptable." To the chagrin of many of my Eurosceptic friends, I did accept, on the balance of judgment but with warnings, the Single European Act and the qualified majority voting that went with it.
	I know that the Minister will be good enough to respond to my amendment No. 233, which deals with child abduction. I may or may not press that to a Division in due course. It will depend on the response that he gives, but I am interested in the effect that all these arrangements will have on the voters: my constituents and the constituents whom we represent in the House. They should not be put in the position the arrangements will put them in.
	Enhanced co-operation covers such a vast range. For example, it will lead to some difficult questions in the run-up to 2004. A White Paper will be published in the next couple of days. I dare say the Minister has a copy already. It will contain, no doubt, a lot of hogwash about European government and European governance. In the past 18 months, I have asked the Prime Minister three times on the Floor of the House to answer a simple question: will he give the British people, in this Parliament, a White Paper to explain the constitutional and political implications of the issues involved: not only the single currency, but the whole European issue. As a new clause in my name underlines, such a response should not be confined to the single currency alone.
	There are serious questions that the Government have to grapple with. As we move towards European government, I would like a straight answer from the Minister. He has the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), his bag carrier, next to him at the moment, and I understand that he must have a little word with him, but at the same time, would he be kind enough to answer this question? I would like to engage the attention of the Minister for a brief second: will the arrangements for enhanced co-operation be employed, or could they be employed—that is the operative word—to move us towards a European constitution? There are many reasons why I object to enhanced co-operation, but if the centre of gravity, which is the European constitution, is to be obtained by movement through these provisions, and the Government say that they do not want a European constitution, I would like them to answer that question clearly.
	Enhanced co-operation is said not to undermine the single market. I am not sure what that means. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain. Nor is it supposed to undermine economic and social cohesion. The arrangements for so-called social cohesion offer a blank cheque book. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out only yesterday, whether the Government run out of money for public expenditure in the last two years of this Parliament will have a lot to do with what the arrangements for social cohesion, and the charter of rights to go with it, will cost. The blank cheque that those arrangements represent will cause very great difficulty for the Government in achieving their objectives.
	It is said that the policy on enhanced co-operation must not violate the obligations, rights and competencies of member states that are not participants in it. In the previous debate, we had a dissertation on the issue of the neutral countries. However, one can appreciate the chaos that the arrangements are bound to create. The arrangements also have to respect the acquis communautaire, particularly in relation to Schengen. Nevertheless, clause 1 is described as a "last resort" clause to be used only when it is not possible to achieve integration by using "traditional" methods. As those traditional methods are to try to get everyone to agree to arrangements that they do not want, the arrangements are, in fact, "don't want" arrangements.
	The euro itself is not part of enhanced co-operation. As I said, however, that pass was sold by John Major and the previous Government, who said that they would not prevent other members from going ahead with it. It was thus just a bit of waffle by the previous Government.
	Fundamentally, the problem with enhanced co-operation is similar to the one that we have with economic and monetary union. Although we have an opt-out, we are still subject to European economic government. The British Government wish to join economic and monetary union one day, despite the fact that, as I said in my general election address, that will take us into the exchange rate mechanism for two years.
	I wish that the official Opposition had made that point during the general election campaign. However, for reasons that completely escape me—such as the fact that we had signed up to EMU by accepting the Maastricht criteria—we did not do so. Some Opposition Members may therefore have felt that it was not advantageous to raise that issue. Some of them may also have discovered that that fact did not help them today.
	In operating many macro-economic rules, the Chancellor of the Exchequer acts as if he were already a member of EMU. The same will happen with policies under enhanced co-operation. We would all be bound within that general legal framework. National Governments who are constrained by sceptical electorates—those of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, not to mention all the others who are fed up with being driven by their elites and blackmailed into accepting money in return for the subordination of their democratic arrangements—will rue the day when the truth finally emerges.
	One could say much more on the subject, but I shall conclude—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted that Labour Members have been such an attentive audience. The matters that we are discussing are important, and they are set out in the treaties. They are extremely dangerous to the future of this country. They are also very dangerous to the European Union. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister's reply.

Anne Picking: Thank you, Sir Michael, for calling me to make my speech during our consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
	Enhanced co-operation between European countries is absolutely essential if there is to be a truly flexible European Union. I have become aware of some of those issues because of my membership of the Labour party's policy commission "Britain in the World". Being a pro-European myself, I cannot see how the amendments proposed by the Tories would do anything but restrict the Government's ability to negotiate. To exclude and not include seems quite daft.
	My predecessor in the House was John Home Robertson, a diligent and hard-working Member who will continue to represent the people of East Lothian in the Scottish Parliament. He was first elected to the House in 1978, after the unexpected and untimely death of Professor John P. Mackintosh. He was also elected during a period, unlike now, when the then Labour Government had had difficulty holding marginal or even safe seats at by-elections. John served his constituency well, especially during the miners strike, when he raised more issues than most hon. Members.
	As a Member of this place, it will be a great pleasure to work closely with John Home Robertson, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and with Provost Pat O'Brien and the Labour-controlled East Lothian council. That combination will ensure that the people of East Lothian continue to receive the high standard of representation that they enjoy and expect from the Labour party.
	I have already mentioned John P. Mackintosh, whose achievements in life as a professor of politics and campaigner for a Scottish Parliament are very well known. Perhaps less well known is that he twice gained the constituency from the Conservative party, and that on the second such occasion the defeated Tory Member was none other than the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Suffice it to say that, like many other invaders in history, and similar to his bid for leadership of the Tory party, his sojourn to East Lothian was brief.
	East Lothian is a stunningly beautiful part of Scotland. It is situated east of Edinburgh, north of the Lammermuir hills and adjacent to the Firth of Forth and North sea. It is therefore a community with natural boundaries. Talking about the Firth of Forth, I was fortunate enough to be brought up on the north side of the Forth, with a majestic view to the south. I now represent and bide in a constituency on the south side of the Forth with a monumental view to the north. All that—and now I discover that occasionally in this place I have yet another view, of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), albeit not so prepossessing.
	East Lothian did have, and still does have, its troublesome times. Located where it is, so close to the English border, it was inevitable that it would become a route for, and battleground between, the military forces of Scotland and England. Many famous battles were fought on East Lothian soil. Mary Queen of Scots lost her cause in Scotland, at Carberry hill, in 1567. In the following century, at the battle of Dunbar, Oliver Cromwell's new model army decisively defeated Scottish forces sympathetic to the monarchy. The battle of Prestonpans was memorable, when Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobites were victorious against the Government forces led by General Johnnie Cope. Thankfully, the Government forces were much more successful in securing a victory on 7 June 2001 than they were in 1745.
	Speaking of battles and Government forces, in the general election campaign I was lucky enough to be supported by the Deputy Prime Minister. He was due to visit Prestonpans Labour club. The night before the auspicious visit, I was decorating the club and blowing up balloons, as one does, when the news came in that my right hon. Friend had an altercation with one of the British electorate, so I had no idea what to expect. We did not know what type of reception he would receive, whether it would be hostile or supportive. In the event, it was massive. It was a media circus. It was like a night at the Oscars, cameras and flashlights everywhere.
	My right hon. Friend received a hero's welcome. The majority of constituents made measured comments about the incident, such as:
	"It's terrible that politicians and their staff should be attacked and abused in such a way."
	There were also, however, more down-to-earth, frank and forthright quotes from some of the locals. Margaret Jones, from Dunbar, said:
	"We breed men not mice in the Labour Party".
	Sandra Stalker, from Port Seton, felt that my right hon. Friend
	"didn't hit him hard enough".
	The history of East Lothian has not been one only of battles and wars. One of the less well known incidents occurred at Tranent, in 1797, when miners and their families, led by the redoubtable Jackie Crookston, beating her drum, were mercilessly crushed and massacred by troops when they objected to the unfair imposition of military service.
	Although there have been revolutions as well in East Lothian, they have been relatively peaceful ones. Coal, the fuel of industrialisation, was mined in East Lothian from at least the 13th century. The conditions were extremely cruel, and for those people serfdom was not abolished until 1799. For many years later, until well into the l9th century, large numbers of women and girls—some as young as six—were forced to work in the mines. Indeed, a parliamentary commission reported in 1842 that conditions in East Lothian were
	"worse than anywhere else in Great Britain".
	Things did improve thanks to the work of the miners themselves, their unions and the Labour party, but sadly there are no mines left in East Lothian. History, heritage, the legacy of human pain, suffering, hard work, pride and even death over the centuries was callously decimated by the Conservative party, without an ounce of compassion.
	I felt that I could not or should not make my maiden speech without mentioning my maiden name and paying tribute to my family, some of whom are here today. I was born Anne Moffat of the famous dynasty of Moffats who are steeped in the history of the Scottish miners trade union movement and who hailed from Fife and East Lothian. It is fitting that a Fifer is representing the good people of East Lothian.
	Before I had the honour of being elected to the House, I was a nurse in the national health service and was privileged to be elected national president of the UK's largest trade union, UNISON. The NHS is a unique and wonderful British institution; it is also at a crossroads. To hear the contenders for the Tory crown of thorns is to listen and marvel. They criticise the state of the health service, but how do they think it got to that position? I worked in the unfashionable mental health services, as successive Tory Governments ripped the heart out of the service by deep cuts in spending and pernicious neglect. There is no doubt that this Government's prescription of massive extra funding is the way forward.
	The NHS plan agreed last year sets the right path for investment and reform. I have seen the Government's proposals for the next 10 years and I utterly refute the suggestion that they represent a privatisation agenda. Everything now being proposed was in that plan and the service bought into it. I have to be honest and say that I do not believe that in an ideal world the PFI would be the way to build hospitals. It is a fact, however, that the investment programme is based on harnessing private capital for public good. The question is whether the price is too high.
	Nevertheless, I welcome the new pilot schemes which are designed to enable ancillary staff to remain part of the NHS team. Securing this change will make a major difference to staff attitudes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health shares my view that the support and commitment of the staff in the health service who subscribe to the unfashionable belief in the public service ethos are crucial to the success of the Government's plans.
	I lived and worked in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s. It was a time of mass riots, hunger strikes and the killing of innocents. Bombs, bullets and mindless violence were an accepted part of everyone's life. I nursed, and I saw at first hand the sheer devastation. A return to those days for the good people of Northern Ireland would be a travesty. They are the warmest, kindest people one could ever hope to meet. I wish my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister—and, indeed, all those who are part of the process—all the very best in their endeavours to maintain peace.
	Before I conclude, it would be appropriate for me to mention that East Lothian crossed a threshold on 7 June by electing its first ever woman MP. Women in East Lothian have come a long way since they worked in the mines and led riots and I am very proud to have this honour bestowed upon me.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on delivering an excellent maiden speech, full of eloquence and obvious feeling for her constituency. She and I have in common a background in health and constituencies with strong martial traditions. I am hugely privileged to represent the Wiltshire county constituency of Westbury.
	As hon. Members might expect, Europe features prominently among the concerns of my constituents. In particular, the prospect of an autonomous European military capability that was championed by the Prime Minister at St. Malo and fleshed out at Nice is viewed with unease. The threat that the proposed Euro force might pose to one of the most successful post-war organisations, NATO, and to our symbiotic relationship with the United States has surely not been adequately explored. Still less light has been shed on the intended geographic scope of the initiative, or indeed on the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of the European security and defence policy en bloc.
	I am sure that hon. Members are looking forward to the end of term and to the opportunity of taking a summer break during the recess. The Prime Minister's announcement that he intends to flout tradition and spend at least some of his vacation in Britain is really welcome. Our benighted tourist industry in the south-west has been badly affected by foot and mouth and it needs all the support it can get. I genuinely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear Wiltshire in mind when drawing up his holiday plans—as a tourist he can be sure of a warm welcome.
	The "Anglo Saxon Chronicle" records that in 878, at a high point near Edington in my constituency, King Alfred finally defeated the Danes and in so doing founded the kingdom of Wessex. Therefore, I have a legitimate claim that my constituency is the crucible of England, and in representing this giant among parliamentary divisions I am more honoured than I can possibly express.
	My constituency straddles much of the territory that lies between Bath and Salisbury. It is an area of handsome small towns, attractive villages and deep verdant countryside. To the north lie the thriving county town of Trowbridge and the outrageously beautiful small town of Bradford-on-Avon. Nestling under the escarpment of Salisbury plain is the ancient settlement of Westbury with its famous chalk white horse. Further south still lie the attractive market and garrison town of Warminster and the undiscovered little gem of Mere, close to the border with Dorset. It is truly a diverse constituency. Indeed, to misquote Dr Samuel Johnson, when a man is tired of Westbury he is tired of life, for there is in Westbury all that life can afford.
	West Wiltshire's very obvious physical charm conceals real problems that I suggest would match those faced by the constituencies of many Labour Members. Hon. Members should never for a moment suppose that the English shire counties are untroubled by relative poverty, for that is not so. My constituents have all been victims in one way or another of changes to the formula used in the standard spending assessment. Wiltshire's schoolchildren, road users and social services are suffering badly. Please may we now have fair funding for Wiltshire?
	It is most agreeable to have another doctor in the House. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and I well understand the importance to our patients and our constituents of health care delivered close to home. One of the salient features of the NHS in west Wiltshire is the presence of four excellent community hospitals, but recent bed closures have resulted in considerable hardship, particularly among my elderly constituents. The villains are not just politicians, but those who advise them—health service planners and those in health professions, with their ingrained centralist tendencies. In designing secondary, intermediate and primary health care we must listen to what the paymasters—our constituents—want and be less driven by the needs and aspirations of the medical establishment.
	My predecessor was David Faber. As the grandson of Harold Macmillan, he had an impossible act to follow. Nevertheless, he developed a high reputation in this place and in Westbury. His departure is a loss to the House and his cerebral contribution to culture, media and sport will, I think, be especially missed.
	Not so keenly missed was our predecessor, the colourful Sir Mannaseh Lopes, Baronet. Sir Mannaseh was convicted in 1819 at Exeter assizes for distributing £2,000 in brown paper envelopes while out canvassing. Shortly after his release from jail, this 19th century political comeback kid resurfaced as the Member of Parliament for Westbury, but he proved unpopular with the upright citizens of the town. Somewhat ironically, in 1826 he was replaced by Sir Robert Peel, founder inter alia of the Metropolitan police force.
	Last week, two soldiers lost their lives in a Challenger 2 tank in my constituency. It was a dreadful reminder of the hazards faced by our service men in both peace and war, and of the debt of gratitude that we owe our armed forces.
	When I left the medical branch of the Royal Navy in October last year, I was likened by one of my more thoughtful colleagues to a rat leaving a sinking ship. The analogy was a little unkind, but the point was well made. Our armed forces are in a truly parlous state that contrasts sharply with that enjoyed by many of our allies.
	There are 29 anaesthetists on the books, and there should be 120. There are eight orthopaedic surgeons, and there should be 28. There are three casualty doctors, and there should be 23. It is ironic that one of the least moribund specialties in the defence medical services is pathology. It is small wonder that nearly 10 per cent. of the Army is currently medically downgraded. Nearly one soldier in 10 is not fighting fit.
	What is surprising is the remedy—the closure of the Royal hospital, Haslar, which serves many of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has fought a tireless campaign against the closure, and I pay tribute to his sterling work.
	If the closure of our last military hospital were not bad enough, we are now faced with the removal of the royal defence medical college from its location near Portsmouth to a new centre for defence medicine in Birmingham.
	Birmingham is a truly wonderful city, but most people join the defence medical service to serve the front line—which is billeted in Hampshire and Wiltshire, not in the middle of Birmingham. It is little wonder that esprit de corps and retention are at an all-time low.
	Military medicine, European or otherwise, is an integral part of the defence effort, yet we are allowing the already fibrillating heart of Britain's defence medical services to drift irrevocably towards asystole. If we allow that to happen, our ability to prosecute even the sort of conflict in which NATO, according to many Labour Members, might reasonably be involved—but not directly—will be severely limited. If I may issue a cry from the heart: may we please think again?

Denzil Davies: We have just heard two excellent maiden speeches. They, and the other such speeches that we have heard, caused me to cast my mind back to my own halting and nervous first contribution. I made my maiden speech in the early hours of the morning some time in June 1970, when not many hon. Members were around to hear it. By contrast, the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), and others, have spoken with a fluency that fills me with admiration. The hon. Member for Westbury mentioned his predecessor, David Faber. Many Labour Members may not have known Mr. Faber as well as the hon. Gentleman, although I do not mean that as a criticism, but we all knew John Home Robertson, the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian.
	I mentioned earlier that I was the Labour party's defence spokesman in the 1980s. It was an exciting time both for the party and for defence spokesmen. Many members of our armed forces were stationed in Wiltshire, and I remember visiting the county. I was struck by the remark by the hon. Member for Westbury that not all parts of Wiltshire are as affluent as people—especially people from the Celtic fringes—tend to believe. Even in the 1980s, parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency were notably less affluent than some expected.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian mentioned John Home Robertson, who was known, liked and admired by all hon. Members. She also mentioned Mr. John P. Mackintosh, about whom I have mixed feelings. I admired him greatly as a constitutional expert and writer of well-known and excellent books, but I was a junior Treasury Minister between 1975 and 1979, in a Government which, between 1977 and 1979, had no majority. Trying to see a Finance Bill through Standing Committee without a majority is quite an experience, and not one through which I should like to put today's Ministers.
	Such an experience hones one's advocacy skills. If one wanted John P. Mackintosh's vote, one had to be pretty skilful. He and his friend Mr. Brian Walden used to go about together sometimes, and they were quite likely to end up in a different Lobby from other Labour Members when a Division was called. However, Mr. Mackintosh was a distinguished Member of Parliament.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian also mentioned the Jacobites. I was 15 years old when, as a grammar school pupil in Wales, I had to study the Jacobite rebellion for the old O-level exam. I pity our history teacher now, as it must have been an impossible task to explain the reasons for that rebellion to 15-year-old boys in west Wales. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Westbury on their excellent maiden speeches.
	I turn now to enhanced co-operation. Everyone is in favour of better co-operation—even the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), in certain areas at least. It is an important matter, and is addressed by amendment No. 56 in particular, which deals with article 2 of the treaty.
	It appears to me that, if Britain entered an enhanced co-operation arrangement with eight, nine or 10 states, our democracy would be diminished. Such arrangements cannot be changed. I have read the articles, and I believe that it would not be possible to withdraw from enhanced co-operation arrangements without securing a qualified majority.

William Cash: The acquis communautaire means that the arrangements would not prejudice the assumption that all member states must accept the pre-existing legal framework. That framework would not be altered.

Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman probably understands these matters better than some other hon. Members, although I am not sure that I understand that explanation completely. I suspect that it would not be possible simply to withdraw from an arrangement without securing some kind of qualified majority, which would take the matter out of Britain's democratic and political grasp.
	For example, no party could enter a general election saying that it would pull out of an enhanced co-operation agreement on agriculture, just as no party now can say that it wants to come out of the common agricultural policy. Since about 1979, all parties—without telling the public—have wanted to leave the CAP, but that is impossible because all other member states would have to agree.
	Enhanced co-operation, like qualified majority voting, would represent another diminution of our democracy. Choice at the polls would also be diminished, as the number of areas that could not be changed by the normal democratic processes of the nation state grew.

Mark Hendrick: Why does my right hon. Friend feel that it would be necessary to withdraw from an agreement? One enters an agreement with a view to carrying on that agreement.

Denzil Davies: Circumstances change. I well remember the arguments for the common agricultural policy during the debate on the European Communities Act 1972. One of the reasonable arguments made was that Europe needed a common agricultural policy to protect its food production so that it would always have a supply within that tariff area. Many people accepted that argument. Well, the world has changed; there is no shortage of food. It is perfectly possible now to import food at much lower prices from other parts of the world. I should think that many people, whether they are Euro-enthusiasts, Eurosceptics or whatever, would argue that the CAP has outlived its purpose and should be changed. So my hon. Friend should not believe that once one has entered into an enhanced co-operation agreement, it is right and good for all time. There is no democratic mechanism as far as I can see for the nation state to withdraw from such an agreement without the agreement of all the other EU members. That diminishes our democracy, and it is one of the real problems of the EU. That democracy is not really replaced, unless we go to a fully federal state, by any of the new arrangements. To that extent, the new arrangements are anti-democratic for the nation state.
	I do not know whether the British Government wish to enter into enhanced co-operation on taxation, but I believe that it will happen. This week I had sent to me a paper dated 1 June 2001, produced by Mr. Bernhard Zepter, the Deputy Secretary-General of the European Commission, on tax policy in the European Union. I do not think that the hon. Member for Stone has received it yet, so I think I am a step ahead of him. I suspect that it will be in the next edition of "European Forum" now that I have mentioned it on the Floor of the House.
	The paper is called "Tax policy in the European Union—Priorities for the years ahead." It was sent by Mr. Zepter to Mr. Javier Solana. Unlike the hon. Member for Stone, who seems to dislike the gentleman, I have nothing against Mr. Solana. Mr. Solana describes himself as as a secretary-general but also as a high representative. May I make a slight plea to the Minister for Europe, the Minister for plain speaking, who is represented by an equally plain speaker in the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)? I can see that my hon. Friend assents to that. Could they please stop calling themselves high representatives? It has a Gilbertian ring about it. They have been doing it certainly since I have been involved. I think that it goes back to the European Coal and Steel Community. No doubt it is a diplomatic phrase that keeps the diplomatic corps happy.

William Cash: In the operas to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring, it was the lord high executioner.

Denzil Davies: I did not like to digress, Sir Michael, or you might have said that I was out of order.
	"Secretary-General" I do not mind. "Secretary" would be all right, but everyone is a secretary-general these days. But not "high representative" please. If we are getting rid of flummery and diplomatic language and adopting plain speaking, let us drop these rather silly titles. That is a small and perhaps frivolous point.
	I refer the Committee to paragraph 4.4 of the document. I accept that Foreign Office Ministers have not seen it, at least for the purposes of this debate. It relates to enhanced co-operation in the field of taxation. The paper is about taxation and ways of getting round the veto. It is not put in such plain language, but in effect it tells the high representative how the Commission would like to find ways to get round the veto on taxation, especially direct taxation, because the Commission rightly believes that it hampers the development of the internal market. I believe that it affects the euro as well.
	Many ideas are put forward in the document, including something called soft legislation, which is not in fact legislation but guidelines. We will leave that for another occasion. One area that the Commissioners hit on—they are very clever, these people—was enhanced co-operation. I shall quote paragraph 4.4, as probably no one else but me has a copy. The Deputy Secretary-General writes:
	"The possibilities introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty and developed by the Nice Treaty for closer co-operation between sub-groups of like-minded Member States could also be envisaged in certain cases. In particular, this could be used in tax policy areas where, even in the long term, decisions in the Council are taken by unanimity. . . . The decision at Nice will enable the Commission to propose to the Council that as small a group as eight Member States may co-operate more closely, after approval within the Council by qualified majority."
	That does not give the steps correctly. The eight member states obviously have to get together first. Then, as new article 11 states, the eight member states tell the Commission, the Commission puts a proposal back to the eight member states and they pass it by qualified majority.
	The document continues:
	"However, in line with the principles agreed at Nice, this approach"—
	enhanced co-operation in both direct and indirect taxation—
	"must not, among other things, undermine the Internal Market".
	Clearly, it would not undermine the internal market. In the view of the Commission, it could probably be said to enhance the internal market if eight, nine or 10 states harmonised their tax rates or certainly their tax structures, gradually moving towards harmonisation of rates, as is happening with VAT.
	The document also says that the arrangement must not
	"constitute a barrier to or a discrimination of trade".
	Well, it would not in taxation cases. It says that the arrangement must not
	"distort the conditions of competition".
	I should not have thought it would; again, it could be argued by the proponents that it would enhance co-operation, given that different tax rates and structures distort competition. Similarly, the arrangement must not
	"affect the competences, rights and obligations of the non-participating Member States."
	It would not do that either.
	It is clearly the view of the Commission that the ideas in the document are a pretty good wheeze to get round the awful veto by member states of changes in direct or indirect taxation. This interesting document continues:
	"In the field of direct taxation, co-operation between Member States has been organised mainly through bilateral tax treaties."
	That is correct. There are not only international tax treaties; I believe that certain countries within the EU have their own tax treaties, mainly to regulate cross-border transactions. The document continues:
	"The enhanced co-operation could be targeted so as to produce such benefits for the participating countries"—
	this comes back to a point that was buried in the speech of the hon. Member for Stone—
	"that non-participants"—
	this is the sting in the tail—
	"would be motivated to become involved."
	Of course they would be, if eight, nine or 10 states decided to enter into enhanced co-operation on direct or indirect taxation. The document goes on to deal with indirect taxation. VAT is already practically harmonised, so there is not much room for enhanced co-operation there.

William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman has legal qualifications that far exceed mine. Article 44 says:
	"Member States which do not participate in such cooperation shall not impede the implementation thereof by the participating Member States."
	Therefore, the same principle applies in the second paragraph of article 44 as applied to economic and monetary union. So the gravitational pull is exactly as the right hon. Gentleman has described it.

Denzil Davies: That is the object of the arrangements. I should not have thought that non-participating states would wish to interfere and impede. They could not do so, anyway.
	On indirect taxation, the document states:
	"the possibility of enhanced co-operation could provide a way forward in the area of environmental and energy taxation. A majority of Member States have indicated their strong desire to make progress in this area"—
	presumably in relation to enhanced co-operation. Perhaps the Under–Secretary will tell us in his winding-up speech whether the British Government are included in that majority in relation to indirect taxation. I hope that we will be told at the end of this debate, in the interests of plain speaking and transparency.

Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend seems to be saying that what we are talking about is a ruse to get round something that is currently protected by unanimity. What evidence can he give us that there could be a change in taxation policy by a group of countries that did not require unanimous support from the rest of the European Union? I have seen nothing in the treaty saying that.

Denzil Davies: I have the best evidence in the world. The Deputy Secretary-General of the European Commission does not write frivolous letters to a so-called high representative. These people are top cats.

Michael Connarty: The speculation or writings of a member of the Commission do not constitute a treaty or a change in the law. I am asking for a specific reference to a change in the law that would allow unanimity to be knocked aside by this arrangement for co-operation.

Denzil Davies: I am giving my hon. Friend a specific reference, although I am sure that he will get a better answer from the hon. Member for Stone. The answer is quite simple—enhanced co-operation is allowed in all the areas covered by these treaties.
	We do not have much time. The Commission has been pretty fast—this document, its priority for the future, was produced on 1 June. It is addressed specifically to outflanking the veto.

Mark Hendrick: Why are these matters of such concern to my right hon. Friend? Clearly, the terms are not binding on member states that do not wish to take part in enhanced co-operation. If a member state chooses to set an income tax rate of 15 per cent. and other member states wish to follow suit, why is that of such concern to my right hon. Friend? It will not be binding on this nation state to co-operate in that fashion.

Denzil Davies: I never said that it would be, but I think that it is. My hon. Friend should not dismiss enhanced co-operation so lightly. It enables a group of states to move ahead, and we must address ourselves to the effect that that would have on other states outside. The Deputy Secretary-General of the Commission makes the point clearly that if benefits were produced for participating countries, non-participants would be motivated to become involved.

William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman is, as ever, plumbing the depths of the matter. The concentric circles plan, which applies across the board to all areas affected by enhanced co-operation, is the master strategy for this purpose. I refer the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) to article 44 on page 14 of the treaty of Nice:
	"Unanimity shall be constituted by only those Council members concerned."
	Therefore, by definition, the others are excluded. It continues:
	"Such acts and decisions shall not form part of the Union acquis."
	There are hidden traps in that statement as well, because of course the acquis applies to all the other states. 7.15 pm

Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman speaks about traps. However, on my hon. Friend's point, let us suppose that Germany, France, Italy, Spain and four other countries decide to harmonise their direct taxation and rates, starting by harmonising structures. In fact, let us suppose that they start harmonising corporation tax, which is of great importance and concern to British companies trading in Europe. Is my hon. Friend saying that we can forget about that? Is he saying that Britain would not be under any pressure to join? Of course Britain would be under commercial and economic pressure to join those eight countries.

Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Denzil Davies: In a moment. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers said that they fought a great battle in Nice and preserved the veto on taxation. I am not sure how much of a battle there was, frankly. Clearly, Ministers were fighting some battle and were determined to assure us of it. I suspect that there was not much of a battle in Nice about taxation. I also suspect that quite a few member states, including France and Germany, would not be unhappy about moving towards some kind of harmonisation of direct taxation.

Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Denzil Davies: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment; I will try to develop my argument first. Many states may wish to harmonise corporation tax and its structures and then move to harmonising rates, in order, as they see it, to foster and enhance the single market.
	I also believe that the movement towards enhanced co-operation in taxation will come partly—perhaps mainly—because of the real problems of the euro. I do not want to introduce the euro to this debate, but there is something fundamentally wrong with it at the moment. Whenever it falls, we are told that it is because of this poor fellow who is the governor of the European central bank, who has been much maligned, or that it is to do with American corporations bringing money back from America. All sorts of different reasons are given and when they are dispelled, others must be found for why the euro is not looking the dollar in the eye. The euro will not look the dollar in the eye until the split between monetary and fiscal policy in the euro area is repaired. That can be achieved only with more rules on expenditure and a move towards the harmonisation and unification of taxation. It makes no sense to have a currency to which certain elements of fiscal policy relate, just as deficit spending and borrowing relate to some extent. The other area of fiscal policy—taxation—is completely outside the ambit of the euro area and the euro. Therefore, I have no doubt that pressure will be brought to bear. European Ministers have said so, and I think that they are right.

Mark Hendrick: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. He talks about members co-operating and says that they will take advantage of any benefits from such co-operation. Is that not the case with the euro? The eurozone has been created; the euro exists. Member states joined the euro with the view that it would benefit their economy and nation. What is wrong with that? We can choose whether to join or not but we are under no pressure to do so. It will be a decision of this nation state. Whether member states wish to co-operate in other areas is a matter for them.

Denzil Davies: We are not, as my hon. Friend seems to think, living in a totally isolated world. The very existence of the euro puts pressure on us to decide whether to join. At the end of the day, the decision will, of course, be taken by the British people and the House, but the economic pressures are considerable and they have been for some time. The Government have tried to resist those pressures as much as they can because they want to ensure that the conditions, whatever we may say about them, are fulfilled.

Chris Bryant: As far as I can see, my right hon. Friend's argument leads him down anti-democratic byways. He seems to be arguing that because the euro might be of benefit to others and that that somehow creates a gravitational pull in any of the areas of enhanced co-operation to which reference has been made, we should therefore exercise a veto over what others do. That seems to be fundamentally anti- democratic.

Denzil Davies: I was not even arguing that. I was merely explaining, as does the gentlemen who wrote the paper on future priorities in taxation, that it will be possible for certain countries to get together and create a euro-area in taxation. The point that I was then trying to make—my hon. Friends do not seem to believe it—is that the pressures on a British Government as a result of the market and of commerce to join such a euro-area of enhanced co-operation in taxation will be considerable. That is the only point that I am trying to make. If my hon. Friends do not believe that, it is a matter for them. The Commission has spotted—it will have thought about it beforehand—a way of outflanking the national veto on taxation.

William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman might even have said that the Commission plotted—rather than spotted—to achieve these objectives. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) should remember that we are debating a treaty, which is therefore dealt with in this country by royal prerogative. Our system is to implement the treaty by enacting a Bill, but that means that we, as a Parliament, endorse these wide-ranging arrangements, which have consequences for the electors. That is what is undemocratic. Proceedings on the Bill are guillotined and the public are unaware of what is going on.

Denzil Davies: The point that I am making is that enhanced co-operation is not trivial, affecting only a few areas. Although Ministers have said that the giving up of a veto, which is, in effect, what we are doing, is just a technical matter, it is certainly not in relation to enhanced co-operation. The matter is central. Pressure on member states such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain from the Commission will be greater and greater. This is the first shot.

Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend consider the example of Ireland? Ireland took part in a regime of corporation tax which resulted in a lower rate than in many other European member states. The Commission accepts that tax competition is healthy and allows it throughout Europe. Lower taxes in Britain than in some of those taking part in my right hon. Friend's so-called enhanced co-operation on taxation would be to our benefit. Why is there pressure for us to join if we can have lower taxes?

Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend mentions the low rates of corporation tax in Ireland, which would have had beneficial effects on the Irish economy. However, when is tax competition harmful tax competition? That would be a good essay for the hon. Member for Stone.

William Cash: I have done it already.

Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman has written about that already. Perhaps he has written a book on the subject—I do not know. The question of when tax competition becomes harmful is entirely subjective.

Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Denzil Davies: I have given way often to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he has some very good points to make and perhaps he will make them later.
	Tax competition of the kind that we have seen in the Irish Republic is frowned on. If there is a transitional period, which I think there will be when the Irish lower rate runs out, it will not occur again. The less euro-enthusiasts say about Ireland, the better. The Irish people, who as far as Prodi is concerned are all stupid, are not stupid, and I suspect that they are spotting what is happening. That is one reason—not the only reason—why they voted as they did on the treaty of Nice.
	We are not discussing trivial matters. I can understand why France and Germany might want to keep to an inner core of a Europe of six, seven or eight. They do not want to lose that central or federalising impetus, which they felt they had when there were fewer countries, when the Poles and the unhistorical nations of Europe, as Marx described them, enter the European Union. I can understand them wanting to maintain a core, but that core must involve taxation, which is central to economic and monetary union, economic policy and the currency. The pressures will be considerable.
	I ask my hon. Friend the Under–Secretary, who will undoubtedly convey this faithfully to my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe when he returns from making the speech to which he referred, to assure us—we have an assurance on the veto—that the Government will never consider entering into an enhanced co-operation agreement in respect of direct or indirect taxation. In the interests of plain speaking, we must be sure that our veto will not be outflanked by the nefarious wheezes dreamed up by those clever people in the Commission.

Menzies Campbell: As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) said, we have had the benefit of some cracking maiden speeches. In particular, I should like to mention the two that have been made in this part of the debate.
	The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made a speech that one could describe as of a fairly traditional nature. He will clearly be an effective advocate for his constituency. He brought a smile and a certain ironic recollection to some of us when he talked about brown envelopes. They have featured in recent political history; let us all hope that they do not do so again.
	The hon. Gentleman made several cogent and effective points on defence medical services. I have taken an interest in that area in the past, and just as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) threatens everyone that he will send them a copy of a pamphlet, I shall send the hon. Member for Westbury a copy of a document that I was able to produce along with some others. He will find that it is of some interest on the issue of defence medical services. As someone with direct experience, he will clearly be able to give us an inside view of many of the problems that attach to the present standard of provision of medical care for our armed services. I am sure that the House will be the better for that.
	The hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) has left her place. It would be fair to say that hers was a non-traditional maiden speech. However, if she is a scion of the Moffat family of Fife, that is hardly surprising. She made some witty observations and spoke with real affection about her constituency. I shall hold her to account to a certain extent because she now represents several members of my family and I want to ensure that they receive the proper standard of representation to which they are entitled.
	The hon. Lady referred with affection, which we all share, to her predecessor, John Home Robertson. Under the conventions of the House, I was never able to call him my hon. Friend, but he was and remains a very good friend of mine. He was, of course, one of those who championed the cause of home rule for Scotland with great effectiveness. It is right that he is now a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
	John Home Robertson's predecessor was John Mackintosh, to whom the right hon. Member for Llanelli also referred. John Mackintosh was a great champion of the cause of home rule. He may have been difficult in proceedings on the Finance Bill, but he was a very strong pro-European. There are those who would think that his legacy is best remembered not by the definitive book that he wrote on Cabinet Government, but by his tireless advocacy of the cause of Britain's membership of what was then the European Community.
	My text is taken from the Conservative party manifesto in the last election, wherein it is said:
	"we are willing to support the principle of 'reinforced co-operation' in Europe".
	I imagine that the hon. Member for Stone had some sort of derogation, or perhaps he claimed that, for reasons of national policy, in Stone he did not have to adhere to that statement, but that is the position of the Conservative party. We also have the authority of the shadow Foreign Secretary, who is not with us this evening, who last year said:
	"we should not, in principle, exclude others from proceeding with schemes of closer integration which we would not wish to join ourselves."—[Official Report, 15 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1145.]

William Cash: I am doubly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, first, for drawing attention to that provision, which I put on the front page of the blue paper which I wrote in response to the White Paper produced by the then Foreign Secretary, because I thought that those words amounted to an act of appeasement. Secondly, on the question of my election address, I can assure him that I stated emphatically that we should renegotiate the treaties—indeed, I went further and said that if the other countries did not listen we would have to steer our own course.

Menzies Campbell: I am doubly glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, who has effectively attacked his own party. However, I do not want to intrude on private grief: these matters are ones that the Conservatives will have to resolve themselves, and whoever emerges through the pall of white smoke to become the leader of the party will have to deal with them.
	Let me say a word or two about enhanced co-operation. The Nice treaty endeavours to free up procedures first established at Amsterdam. It is worth reminding ourselves why some EU members felt that a mechanism for enhanced co-operation was necessary. To a large extent, it was the result of the attitude adopted by, among other countries, the UK under the Conservative Government. Their attitude was interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as one of wanting to act as a brake on the pace of further integration and they were considered likely to use the veto if any question of integration were to arise. Those apprehensions were justified to some extent when the profligate use of the veto in a misguided attempt to get the beef ban lifted exposed the inadequacy of such an approach. Many member states came to believe that enhanced co-operation was necessary if the EU was to make progress.
	It is true that the Amsterdam procedures, which were pretty cautious, have never been tested. It is worth reminding the hon. Member for Stone, who has moved his physical position in the Chamber albeit not his political position, of the existing requirements. They were that enhanced co-operation should not affect the acquis communautaire, nor the interests of participating states; it should be used only as a last resort; it must be within the limits of EU competence; and it should not distort competition between member states. That was established at Amsterdam. The Nice treaty would add to that the requirement that enhanced co-operation should respect the single institutional framework and that it should not undermine the internal market or economic and social cohesion, nor prejudice the provisions of the protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the EU framework, nor affect the competencies, rights and obligations of non-participating states. It strikes me that when that set of criteria is made to form the basis, the test, the context against which we test enhanced co-operation, the anxiety expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is not justified.
	The right hon. Member for Llanelli, when referring to a document prepared by a member of the Commission, said that it represented an effort to outflank. He might have used the words "stealth" or "ruse"—both were certainly offered to him during an intervention. I understand his position to be that, if within the EU a group of countries came together and agreed a common position on taxation—whether income tax or corporate taxation—the UK would have to take some account of that in its own taxation policy. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right about that, but the UK's position would be the same if it was outside the EU—an EU in which several countries determined that in respect of, for example, corporate taxation, they would on a co-operative basis, operate a regime that was common to those countries in a combined effort to attract external investment. The consequences are the same whether we are inside the EU where enhanced co-operation produces the results he says are possible, or outside the EU where several countries have decided to combine.

Denzil Davies: If we were outside the EU, we would be outside the Euro-taxation area. In theory, after the treaty is accepted, it will be possible for 14 countries to accede to enhanced co-operation on taxation and the United Kingdom's veto will be of no avail. Without enhanced co-operation, if 14 countries declare their determination to harmonise taxes, the United Kingdom would in theory—it might be difficult to exercise in practice—have a veto that would stop that happening. In future, we could not stop 14 of 15 countries harmonising their taxation regimes.

Menzies Campbell: No more than we could stop 14 of 15 countries harmonising their taxation regimes if there were no European Union. Sometimes, I get concerned: once upon a time people looked for reds under the beds, now it appears that they are anxious about finding tax inspectors wearing European colours.

William Cash: I say this with great respect—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have in the past agreed with several points that he has made on the treaty—but the fact is that he is missing the point. In the current context, we are dealing with a legal framework. It is not simply a question of people wanting to co-operate with each other; we are talking about a single institutional structure, as I am sure he is aware. He should reflect on the comment he has just made. It is not merely a question of people deciding that they might come together; it is all part of the drift towards one single framework and one autonomous structure. I am sure he understands that.

Menzies Campbell: I do not accept that. I pray in aid not a member of the Commission but Mr. Bolkestein, who is the Commissioner with responsibility for taxation. During the general election campaign, he made it perfectly clear that as far as he is concerned there is no question of harmonisation of either income tax or corporate taxation. The hon. Member for Stone says that, by virtue of enhanced co-operation, circumstances will be created in which the UK gives up its veto—but that applies to every other country that is currently in the same position as the UK. The suggestion that we are dealing with a matter of stealth, foolishness or deception does not stand up.

William Cash: It is a matter of gravitational pull.

Menzies Campbell: We should be far more concerned with the terms of the treaty than with some illusion of gravitational pull.
	For the reasons that I have given, I regret to say that I cannot support the amendment.

Michael Connarty: I, too, commend those who have made maiden speeches in this part of today's debate. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) was exactly in the tradition that I expected from a member of Abe Moffat's family—Abe was a famous miners' leader from Fife—although she also paid all the normal courtesies to her constituency and the Members of Parliament who represented it formerly.
	To the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) I confess that my only connection with Wiltshire is that of having been on the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the other Wiltshire MP, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). We went to Northern Ireland with the combined battalion that contains the old Wiltshire Regiment, whose members were most hospitable. I am sure that we shall learn more about the medical side of the Army from the hon. Member for Westbury. He painted such a wonderful picture of his constituency that I was going to find out where it was and book a few days' holiday there. I wish him well in the House.
	I must be starved of the experience of listening to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) rail against the European Union. We have served on the European Scrutiny Committee together, and I have had the joy, pleasure and great entertainment of going round applicant countries with him, hearing him rail against the EU saying, "Don't do it." It is like going round with a Free Kirk minister who says, "You're doomed, you're all doomed." It is a joy to realise that he is still on the same theme and I look forward to the next few years on the European Scrutiny Committee with him, hearing him go on about his one theme which, basically, is that it is all a conspiracy.
	I thought to myself, "What is that about? Is it against co-operation?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who in some ways spoke in support of the hon. Member for Stone, said that no one was against co-operation, which was a good thing. So, was the hon. Member for Stone against integration? All that co-operation is plainly laid out in paragraph 11 of article 1, which the amendments aim to remove and which reinforces the process of integration. However, the hon. Gentleman told us that he was against fragmentation. I just do not understand; he is against integration and fragmentation. I realise from one or two of his interventions that he thinks there is a conspiracy; that is what it is all about.

William Cash: I am always grateful for the opportunity to spar with the hon. Gentleman, as we have often done in debate for many years. The real problem is that I am against political union, and I am particularly against political union that is going to implode, which is bad for everybody, including those who are in favour of it. That is my simple answer.

Michael Connarty: The Wee Free minister image comes to mind again; we are all doomed because the Union is going to implode. However, I do not see any evidence of implosion; I do not think that other EU members do either. In fact, they see prosperity brought about by co-operation, which is what those provisions in the Nice treaty are about. The amendments are designed to remove paragraphs 11 to 15 of article 1 from the provisions incorporated under clause 1 and to remove paragraph 1 of article 2, which is the framework that provides a belt and braces safeguard for those who may be concerned that some co-operation is unnecessary in small groups and can be achieved across the EU.
	In fact, as has been pointed out, the amendments would remove the ability of any group of eight countries or more to co-operate on any issue, to analyse, structure and put together the mechanisms for co-operation on areas such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), including drugs and crime. Clearly, if enhanced economic mechanisms are involved, that may well be welcomed by a number of member states. If the treaty becomes workable and is appropriately structured so as not to cause the great chaos and problems that certain states may have feared and which may have caused them not to join the original eight, they can join later at any time under article 1, paragraph 12. A state can therefore join if it sees that the treaty is working.
	What is wrong with that? If, at the end of the day, the United Kingdom sees 14 member states put together an enhanced commercial arrangement but stays outside, that is entirely its decision; no one will force or drag it in. As we have seen with the hon. Member for Stone, nothing seems to be a sufficiently strong magnet to draw him to join what he sees as a political conspiracy. Something similar applies to countries: if a country does not want to join, it is not required to do so. Paragraph 12, which would be removed by the amendment, says that enhanced co-operation will be undertaken
	"only as a last resort"
	after it has been decided, following the normal procedures adopted by the EU's full membership, that it would take too long to set in train arrangements acceptable to a country wanting to make progress on any issues.
	That will have to be tested. Is enhanced co-operation a last resort? It is not a first resort; the provision is not saying that, as from day one, everyone will go off, get into little groups of eight countries and get on with their own little schemes. It will be subject to great consideration.

William Cash: To reply briefly to the hon. Gentleman, the example that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) has already given about tax regimes is extremely apposite. An enhancement of so-called single market arrangements for tax under the enhanced co-operation provisions, which will create a congregation of tax regimes, is bound to have an adverse impact on those countries in the single market that do not have the advantages, or disadvantages, of other tax regimes. The fact is, enhanced co-operation will have an impact, which is why so many of us object to it.

Michael Connarty: I shall talk a little later about article 2, paragraph 1 which, of course, would be removed by the amendments. When arrangements are considered by the Council following a recommendation by the Commission, qualified majority voting by the full Council will clearly be required. A majority on the Council must therefore consider the arrangements necessary before a group can go ahead. We in the UK should not be afraid of that. If we stopped being frightened of the EU—this Government are probably not as frightened of it as the previous one—and took a lead, we might find that some arrangements are to our advantage.

Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend mentioned that those arrangements can be carried out only as a last resort. That is correct—it is what the treaty says—but if the UK is to maintain its veto and announce that it is maintaining its veto on direct taxation changes, the case rapidly becomes one of last resort for other member states. Because there are vetoes on taxation changes, the Commission has produced a paper and sent it to the Council. The situation with taxation is getting close to last resort, which is why enhanced co-operation between as many countries as possible is desirable.

Michael Connarty: I think that my right hon. Friend is wrong. He mentioned direct taxation; perhaps he meant indirect taxation. There are serious discussions about indirect taxation, but I have not heard of any attempt to harmonise direct taxation across the EU. If he can give me examples other than a paper from the Commission which may or may not turn into something useful for the discussion, I would accept his point. However, I have not heard of any treaty or Act relating to the EU that says that we would not be able to use our veto on direct taxation.

Denzil Davies: I was referring to direct taxation. The so-called "paper" is a legal document that was sent by the Commission to the Council of Ministers and Mr. Solana. It is not just a paper, but a proposal on taxation for the next few years. My hon. Friend may agree with its proposals, but he should not denigrate an extremely important document that has to be addressed by the members of the Council because it has been sent to their higher representatives.

Michael Connarty: I take my right hon. Friend's point. I am sure that when I read the document I will treat it more seriously than I have just done. I hope that we can agree to differ; the case has not been proven by my right hon. Friend's speech or intervention.
	Article 1, paragraph 13, which would be removed by the amendments, is not binding on any group other than those who wish to be involved. Under paragraph 13, it is clear that no cost arising from co-operation will be borne by any countries other than those who participate, which seems like a good deal. If someone wants to go ahead, look at certain topics, work out a structure and demonstrate the advantages of a scheme that others may wish to join, that seems sensible. Paragraph 14, which would also be removed by the amendments, makes it clear that everything should be consistent with EU policy. The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli comes in here: is there any capacity to do something that would be contrary to the many provisions listed in the treaty, including the fundamental conditions of entry to the EU? There will be quite a substantial debate on that.
	Amendment No. 56 would remove article 2, paragraph 1, which says that, to commence co-operation, the Commission has to submit the matter for discussion to the European Parliament which, clearly, would air many questions and problems and would possibly suggest other routes. The matter would then have to go to the Council and would have to be approved by QMV, which seems sensible. In some policy areas it is necessary to have the assent of the European Parliament before matters can proceed. I happen to have some faith in the double belt and braces approach.
	The proposals in the new clauses are typical of an Opposition who have nothing to say about the substance. The proposals are obstructive.

William Cash: rose—

Michael Connarty: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is a signatory to the new clauses. If they were agreed to, a report would have to be placed before Parliament. That would relate to anything that was ever done about the effects of co-operation and does not relate to anything that I have ever seen during the nine years that I have been in the House of Commons. No attempt has been made to assess the result of a proposed policy, but it is then demanded that an affirmative resolution should be passed by both Houses. We are faced with obstructive nonsense that adds nothing to the debate and therefore should be rejected. In the same way, the conspiracy theories of the hon. Member for Stone should be rejected. We are faced with attempts to obstruct the process of sensible co-operation between nation states that want to build an economic and political union of which we want to be part.

Richard Spring: The hon. Gentleman is expressing a fascinating view of what Parliament is for. Is he saying that Parliament should not consider something as important as the issue before us? If he thinks that parliamentary scrutiny and consideration are somehow obstruction, that says something about an attitude of mind that explains precisely why the EU is so rapidly disconnecting with the peoples of Europe.

Michael Connarty: The idea that the EU is disconnecting with the peoples of Europe is not borne out by any of the surveys. I believe that the EU is becoming more and more embedded in the processes whereby we make our wealth and people get their work. I believe also that it is an area in which we might learn some lessons on social, employment and other relationships that were not enhanced by the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was probably a member.
	The hon. Gentleman's ignorance is compounded by the fact that he makes a point and then turns to talk to a Member who is sitting behind him; that tells us much about his attitude to Parliament. My simple point is that the new clauses are obstructive. They have nothing to do with anything that the last Government ever used. No reports were made on speculative legislation that might relate to the EU and might be determined by resolutions of the House of Commons, although Labour Members asked for that on several occasions.

Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the recommendations of the Conservative party are implemented, and other EU member states implemented them as well, in the sense that individual nation state Parliaments could amend treaties, there would be potential in an enlarged European Union of 28 member states to have 28 different versions of a treaty, none of which would be workable and none of which could be resolved? Is it not better to have a treaty that has been negotiated and can be passed by Parliament?

Michael Connarty: I think that the issue is more serious than that. It is not about a treaty. The new clauses provide that the Government
	"shall lay before Parliament a report showing the implication . . . incorporating the effects of related Articles on enhanced co-operation".
	In other words, if any other eight countries wished to have an enhanced co-operation treaty, the UK Government would have to bring forward an analysis of the effects on the UK, a debate and then a vote. It would be ludicrous to debate decisions by other countries that were designed to be co-operative for the benefit of those other countries. It would be nonsensical to discuss motions of that nature, which would be trivia.

Richard Spring: I am grateful again to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The entire point is that the veto was given up on this issue. The issue would never have arisen had the veto been maintained. The responsibility of this Parliament is to try to preserve the national interest on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom. I am horrified that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.

Michael Connarty: That false horror is not too difficult to see through. The Opposition are trying to score points when they have nothing of substance to say. I am happy to reject the amendments and new clauses. I hope that the House of Commons will see through the obsession of the hon. Member for Stone. I know that he holds his view with great sincerity, but it is an obsession. We are faced with the paucity of the Opposition's proposals.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman skips over the fact that there are new arrangements for voting powers. We have the double majority voting in the European Parliament. For reasons that I cannot go into now but which I dealt with when discussing a previous group of amendments, the arrangements will have a serious adverse impact on the influence of the United Kingdom in matters affecting European law and politics. The bottom line is that it is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to talk about people being obsessive or having conspiracy theories. We are demonstrating that the effects of the treaty that the Government have brought before the House of Commons must be exposed. The hon. Gentleman seems to object to the democratic process. It is weird. In addition, a guillotine motion has been opposed so that we cannot discuss matters in the depth that is required.

Michael Connarty: I am not debating the guillotine motion. I sat through the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate, I listened to earlier contributions and I am making a contribution. I am rejecting his analysis, his conspiracy theories and his worries. We are dealing with essential parts of the framework that is required to allow the EU to go forward. We should not hold back and be the last in line. If others think that they can take us forward in different areas of policy, or if the UK thinks that it can take others forward, that should be allowed through co-operation. If that is attractive to others, they can join in. There is no compulsion. The clauses are excellent and should not be removed from the treaty.

Mark Hendrick: The improved procedures for enhanced co-operation will do a great deal to oil the wheels of the European Union. It is essential that an enlarged EU should have such flexible procedures in place. Member states that wish to co-operate more closely on specific projects will benefit greatly from the proposals. It is bizarre that some Members feel that it is all right for an individual nation state to move in a particular policy direction, but view as a threat or as objectionable a group of member states wishing to move in the same direction together.
	The treaty does much to kill the notion that we are developing a European superstate—a lumbering superstate. Member states may wish to co-operate on different issues and different topics, for which the treaty provides a great deal of flexibility. The treaty also kills the idea of a core set of nation states, because any eight of a possible 28 EU member states could take action on any specific project. The notion of a conspiracy involving France, Germany and Italy in every enhanced co-operation agreement has also been killed.
	The process could be used in the fight against organised crime, including drugs, which is an international industry or business. Crime is an international business. An excellent mechanism is being proposed to allow EU members collectively to take action and to co-operate. Europol shares information on crime, including drug trafficking. An enhanced co-operation agreement would be able to use Europol to share information and to take action against drugs and other forms of cross-border crime.

Bob Spink: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, and I think that he is becoming slightly confused. Is he arguing that individual nation states are unable to co-operate on these important matters without the treaty, and therefore that the treaty is unnecessary?

Mark Hendrick: I am saying that the mechanisms will make any such co-operation more effective. If two countries wish to co-operate on an individual project, they will be free to do so. When eight or more member states wish to contribute on an important issue, the proposed mechanism will be extremely useful. Co-operative action should not prejudice the fight against crime and drugs in non-participating countries.
	A number of hon. Members have threatened us with the spectre of the treaty acting as a back-door mechanism for killing the veto on taxation or on energy taxes in particular. In fact, the changes affect only the countries that want to participate and will have no other effect on other countries, except indirectly, that want to alter their policies as a result of the co-operation that is taking place. There is nothing to be frightened of. I must re-emphasise the fact that non-participating countries are under no obligation to become involved.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, said that, with the exception of child abduction, he opposed extensions of qualified majority voting. He also opposes the treaty's new mechanisms for enhanced co-operation. I have a simple question: how can the 28-member European Union that we envisage make decisions if we do not use QMV in more instances and do not introduce a mechanism of enhanced co-operation? Without those changes, the European Union would be unworkable and it would be impossible to make decisions: refusal to accept them would cause a sclerosis, would make the European Union inoperable and would be a recipe for disaster. That is why Labour Members and some hon. Members from other parties will support the treaty.
	The mechanisms proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) to enable this Parliament to amend the treaty would also be a recipe for disaster. If each of the 28 national Parliaments—assuming that we achieve an enlarged European Union—could amend the treaty, we would end up with 28 different versions that could not be resolved into a single treaty. The Opposition have sought to achieve such a recipe for disaster by tabling their amendments, which aim to throw a spanner in the works of the European Union so that member states feel that it is better to give up their membership rather than continue down our current route.
	We have also heard the old chestnut that the treaty is all about Germany and is a German conspiracy. Under the procedures agreed at Nice the UK now has 29 votes in the Council of Ministers; Germany has the same number, although it has a population of 82 million compared with our population of only 57 million. At least 258 votes in favour would be needed for the adoption of a Council agreement, so the fact that Germany has only 28 votes demonstrates the ridiculousness of the argument that the treaty is about Germany taking over Europe.
	We know that a minimum of eight states will be involved. If eight states want to proceed with an agreement or project, who are we to stop them? If we want to go ahead on a project with seven other members of the European Union, why should other member states prevent us from doing so? Opposition Members spoke of spin and hype, and the hon. Member for Stone used words such as "unworkable", "implosion", "damage", "difficulty", "chaos" and "outrageous". All those words are obviously meant to scare the British public and to frighten them away from a measure that is modest, workable and likely to bring great benefit to members of the European Union.
	I also find it strange that Opposition Members argue that a single member state should be able to do as it wishes, but that a number of member states should not be allowed to get together and reach an agreement through enhanced co-operation. That argument seems very strange and anti-democratic, as the Governments of those member states were elected by their people. If they want to act through enhanced co-operation, they should be free to do so.
	We have a recipe for flexibility and a European Union that works. I believe that the amendments should be rejected on that basis.

Richard Spring: First, I want to pay tribute to two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) generously paid tribute to her predecessor, John Home Robertson, whom we all remember as a formidable parliamentary champion of Scotland and home rule. She spoke about the many battles in her constituency and recalled the Deputy Prime Minister's visit on the day after the famous punch. She also spoke about her career as a nurse; she was, of course, president of Unison. In addition, she praised the people of Northern Ireland; all hon. Members would join her in doing that. I congratulate her on her speech and wish her well in her parliamentary career, in which I am sure she will make many more speeches. She is the first woman MP for East Lothian, which is another basis for congratulations.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). I thank him for his kind tribute to David Faber, who made an important contribution in the House in many aspects of parliamentary life. He expressed doubts—I think that they are widely shared not only this country, but in many parts of the European Union—about the wisdom and development of a future European army. He spoke about the beauty of his constituency. His desire to do so is understandable, as it is one of the most beautiful parts of England. He welcomed the Prime Minister's decision to spend some of the summer in England. I hope that he is right and that the Prime Minister will visit Westbury as part of his holiday. Finally, he spoke about defence medical services with considerable knowledge. I am sure that, after making such a competent maiden speech, he will make such first-rate contributions while representing his constituents in this House. I applaud him and the hon. Member for East Lothian for their speeches.
	The amendments apply to general provisions on enhanced co-operation and to specific provisions on the Community pillar. We are also considering two new clauses tabled by Opposition Front Benchers. One of them concerns effective enhanced co-operation in the UK, while the other relates to UK participation in any enhanced co-operation measure.
	Conservative Front Benchers take a relaxed approach to the principle of enhanced co-operation—the procedure under which groups of countries can integrate more closely if they wish to do so without taking everyone with them. Indeed, we called for a flexible Europe well in advance of the Government. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary observed in his speech in Berlin in June, we believe that the way forward for Europe is the gradual development of a Europe of interlocking and overlapping groupings and relationships, and of nations combining in different combinations and purposes to different extents: a multi-system Europe. Europe has already edged in that direction with the Maastricht opt-outs, Schengen and the single currency.
	I fully appreciate that some of my hon. Friends may fear that such opt-outs have a tendency to be given up and that enhanced co-operation will therefore drive forward uniform integration, but there is nothing inevitable about opt-outs being given up. The Danish people showed that in their single currency referendum, and I trust that the British people will continue to share that attitude to the single currency.
	In a European Union—especially a substantially enlarged one—where the needs and wishes of member states differ, the development of a more flexible, multi-system Union is natural. We should respect the desire of other countries to integrate more closely in certain areas, just as they should respect our desire not to do so if we so choose. Without such mutual respect, the logical consequence will be endless tension, as different countries try to pull everyone else in different directions.
	Foreign Office Ministers had appeared to be extremely sceptical of flexibility, fearing that Britain would be left behind, kept out of the guard's van, missing the boat, and all the other mixed metaphors that tend to be used in this context. The notions of an inner circle and an outer tier, of concentric rings and of first and second-class members belong to yesterday. Some may fear that accepting enhanced co-operation for ever condemns Britain to being on the edge, excluded from this elusive heart of Europe. But that misses the point. As The Economist said,
	"The old argument of the Foreign Office that flexibility is to be resisted because it will lose Britain influence—'a place at the top table'—is no longer convincing."
	That old argument continues to be used, however. Ministers doubted the need for any substantial change at all at the IGC.
	The White Paper of February 2000 on the IGC said:
	"Some member states have suggested that, in an enlarged EU, there will be more occasions where a core of Member States want to move ahead with an activity, whilst others stay out. They argue that the procedures currently in the Treaty are too difficult to use and should be changed. In particular some feel that the emergency brake should be removed. The Government feels that a stronger case will have to be made in order to justify changing procedures that were agreed only in 1997 and which have not yet been put to the test, or indeed used at all. The conditions governing the use of closer co-operation were intended to ensure that too much flexibility did not undermine the Single Market, or could not be used against the interests of a minority of Member States. Those remain important objectives."
	At that time, the then Foreign Secretary said:
	"The flexibility that other member states propose means the enhanced co-operation of a tighter group. We agreed to such a model at Amsterdam. It has never been used. It is hard to understand why a provision that has not been used already needs amendment."—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 780.]
	As late as October last year he said:
	"We are happy to discuss options for change. But we remain cautious about any substantial change to the political and legal safeguards introduced at Amsterdam . . . If we alter the current safeguards too much, the danger is that closer co-operation will become the norm rather than the exception. That could damage both the coherence of the Union and send the wrong signal to the new Member States. We do not want them to appear second-class members before they even join."
	One can only imagine the surprise of Foreign Office Ministers when the Prime Minister announced in his Warsaw speech that he was now going to support the principle of enhanced co-operation. He said:
	"Efficient decision making in an enlarged Union will also mean enhanced co-operation."
	He also said:
	"I have no problem with greater flexibility or groups of member states going forward together. But that must not lead to a hard core; a Europe in which some member states create their own set of shared policies and institutions from which others are in practice excluded. Such groups must at every stage be open to others who wish to join."
	He went on to say:
	"That is why enhanced co-operation must not be used to undermine the single market or other common policies. In particular, we must not invite new members to come into the European Union and then consign them to second-class membership."
	It seems that later that year the Government showed as much pathetic lack of leadership on that issue as they have on all the other issues surrounding the Nice treaty. Having been told by the Prime Minister to support the principle of enhanced co-operation, Ministers not only cast aside all their previous reservations but, in their haste to agree to anything put before them, signed away essential safeguards as well. It is the usual story.
	It would be interesting to hear from the Minister where, if anywhere, the Government stand on the matter. Do Foreign Office Ministers still have their previous reservations about the concept of enhanced co-operation, or do they share the Prime Minister's seeming enthusiasm? Did they reverse direction out of principle, or in order to get through the negotiations? Perhaps we shall have an answer from the plain-speaking Minister.
	The Opposition have been willing to support some changes to make the enhanced co-operation procedure easier to use—for example, a reduction in the number of states that want to be involved in a measure before it can go ahead from a majority to eight. That makes sense in an enlarged Europe of 27 or 28 countries: but at Nice the Government went much further. They abolished the national veto, the so-called emergency brake, in two of the three pillars. A right of reference to the European Council remained, but not a veto. In the case of the first pillar, that is covered by amendment No. 56.
	Under the existing provisions of article 11.2 of the European Community treaty, a member state can declare that
	"for important and stated reasons of national policy"
	it will oppose the granting of authorisation by QMV. The matter may then be referred to the European Council for a decision by unanimity. Under Nice, that unanimity provision is abolished.
	The extent of the ministerial U-turn on the issue is illustrated by what was said at the time of the Amsterdam treaty. The then Minister with responsibility for Europe, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), said that
	"critically, although flexibility proposals can be agreed by majority voting, the Government ensured in the Amsterdam negotiations that the clauses will be subject to the emergency brake—the veto mechanism—that allows any member state that opposes a specific flexibility proposal to veto it by bringing it back to the Council."—[Official Report, 15 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 543.]
	Yet that so-called "critical" safeguard, which the Government apparently single-handedly secured at Amsterdam, was jettisoned at the very next IGC—so much for consistency, and for what? What did the Government receive in return for that major concession, and for sacrificing a huge negotiating counter should any country wish to use those procedures in future? Did they even ask for anything in giving up the veto on enhanced co-operation?
	We have grave concerns. We have always made it clear that we would expect to use the veto only sparingly where our national interests were genuinely challenged, but it is absolutely right that we should have preserved that right to veto. It remains an essential safeguard and the Government should not be signing it away. It means that in future Governments will be unable to block integration by others even if our interests were being damaged.
	Issues also arise under the remaining pillar—common foreign and security policy. The Government have made clear their view that the emergency brake veto remains in place for this pillar. In so far as the existing article 23(2) provides for that, the Government may be correct in that interpretation, but the House of Commons Library—I hope that the Minister will take this on board—points to what it describes as an ambiguity, in that articles 43 to 45 do not provide for an emergency brake. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point today.
	Furthermore, other changes to enhanced co-operation measures were agreed at Nice about which we also have concerns. For example, article 43 of the European Union treaty, as amended by paragraph 11 of article 1 of the Nice treaty, sets out a new condition of such co-operation, namely that it must be aimed at
	"reinforcing the process of integration".
	In addition, measures must not affect the "competencies, rights and obligations" of member states not participating in them, rather than
	"competencies, rights, obligations and interests",
	as at present. That is an important point. Again, perhaps the Minister will explain why those changes were made, the basis of the changes and what the advantage to Britain was in giving way in that respect.
	Surely it is time for a proper and considered debate on enhanced co-operation as EU enlargement occurs. Policies on the central issue should be determined according to the requirements of a modern, enlarged Europe, not those of Ministers who seek seemingly cost-free concessions during late-night haggling at Nice for no apparent advantage.
	New clause 9 would provide for such a debate, and I hope that hon. Members accept our genuine anxiety about the need for it. New clause 10 would provide for additional safeguards should Britain wish to participate in measures that were agreed under enhanced co-operation procedures. We have given up the veto on that crucial issue, and it is important to gain some clarification. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister's opinion of our balanced new clauses. I commend them to the House.

Denis MacShane: We have had an enjoyable debate, which was enhanced by two remarkable maiden speeches. I believe that the 2001 intake will prove one of the strongest additions to Parliament for several decades. I suspect that the new Members in question have long, strong parliamentary careers ahead and a chance to contribute to our national life. The maiden speeches that were made this evening prove that assertion.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) made a remarkable and polished maiden speech. Like her, I was a former trade union president, but I did not manage quite the same turn of phrase. She paid tribute to her two predecessors, whose membership of the House totalled more than 30 years. I recall John P. Mackintosh speaking on the radio when I was a young man. He was articulate and had a great command of ideas. He was followed by John Home Robertson, whom I was proud to call a personal friend. We went skiing—that great and noble parliamentary sport—together, and I invite my hon. Friend to take her place in the parliamentary ski team. Scots are always much better at the sport than those who live south of the border. My hon. Friend referred to the centrality of public service. I believe that all Labour Members would agree with her about that.
	The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) also made a strong maiden speech. He referred to a predecessor with a Spanish-sounding name, who represented the constituency at the end of the 19th century and came to a sticky end. Those who know their Trollope remember Mr. Ortiz, the Conservative Member of Parliament who came to a terrible end. Perhaps bearing a Spanish name does not enhance a Conservative career. Given that all the shadow spokespeople for Foreign Affairs supported the loser in tonight's great election, I look forward to a freshening up of the Front Bench for future Foreign Affairs debate.

Richard Spring: Was that the Prime Minister's view when he sacked all the Foreign Office Ministers before the hon. Gentleman arrived on the Front Bench? The Minister for Europe has returned to glory, but perhaps the sackings summed up the Prime Minister's view of the Ministers who served the Foreign Office in the last Parliament.

Denis MacShane: I am glad that my hon. Friend effected his recycling policy when he changed from being Minister for Energy to Minister for Europe. I should prefer to dwell on the Prime Minister's appointments than on his dismissals.
	We have held a good debate. I believe that the enhanced co-operation provisions of the Nice treaty strongly contribute to promoting British and European interests in the next stage of constructing the European Union.
	The EU's ability to develop and change—its flexibility—has made it a success throughout the years. That flexibility is tested every time more member states join. In a European Union that stretches from Lisbon to Tallinn, it will be increasingly difficult to get agreement to move ahead on all subjects with all member states unless we have flexibility.
	Flexibility in the EU has been called many names. For example, it has been described as differentiated integration, which sounds like the Eurobabble that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe denounced in a speech outside the House in past few minutes. It has also been called variable geometry. I believe that that phrase was first used by the former Prime Minister, John Major.
	The treaties have settled on the term "enhanced co-operation". Perhaps that is inelegant, but it neatly encapsulates the wish behind the provisions. In plain English, it means that the EU member states do not have to do everything together. It allows smaller groups of member states to take action together on subjects that the EU treaties cover without requiring every other member state to join in.

William Cash: Perhaps another way of putting it is: all the member states cannot avoid being affected by the actions of those who decide to go ahead.

Denis MacShane: That was close to being a triple negative. The other day, the hon. Gentleman called not only for enhanced co-operation but for the abolition of the veto on family law. He did that with great passion, and I believe that he was right. Perhaps enhanced co-operation could be used to effect what the hon. Gentleman wishes.
	The provisions for enhanced co-operation already exist; they were introduced in the Amsterdam treaty. However, they have never been used. The Nice treaty makes them easier to use for those who want to do that while strengthening the safeguards for those who do not. That is a sensible move to prepare for the enlarged European Union that we want, and we welcome it.
	However, the Bill is not about building a two-speed Europe, or a hard core of states that prevent others from joining in. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech in Warsaw last year:
	"Enhanced co-operation is an instrument to strengthen the Union from within, not an instrument of exclusion."
	The safeguards that we built in at Nice will prevent that. Those provisions are important. Enhanced co-operation must be a last resort, not the rule. As many member states as possible will be encouraged to join in. Those that want to join an existing enhanced co-operation action later should be given every opportunity to do so.
	Enhanced co-operation may not harm the rights of those that do not participate. Actions under enhanced co-operation will not form part of the acquis or basic rules of the EU, so neither existing nor new member states will be required to take part.
	It was right to strengthen the safeguards. It was also right to amend the procedures, as we did at Nice, so that, provided the safeguards are respected, no single state can veto a proposal for enhanced co-operation. The so-called emergency brake has gone.
	The Opposition have made much of this change, but we are clear that it is not reasonable in an enlarged EU for one member state to hold up those wishing to proceed with enhanced co-operation, provided that the rigorous conditions have been met. Therefore, while we have rightly removed the veto on enhanced co-operation for action in the community field, we have built in a further safeguard: the right of appeal to the European Council. Any member state that strongly objects to a proposal for enhanced co-operation can make its case to the elected Heads of State and Governments in the European Council, and if the Council so decides, the proposal will not go forward. There will still be a veto on proposals for enhanced co-operation under the common foreign and security policy pillar, because decisions are taken on a basis of unanimity in that area.
	The Opposition cannot have it all ways. They cannot be in favour of more flexibility in Europe, as they said that they were in their manifesto, while demanding that the emergency brake be retained.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Denis MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am just coming to the end of my remarks.

William Cash: They were a bit short.

Denis MacShane: Well, I am trying not to follow the hon. Gentleman's example in these debates.
	The Opposition cannot support the principle of enhanced co-operation—

William Cash: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. In relation to the programme motion, it is pretty monstrous of the Minister to allege that somehow or other we are stringing things out when the Government are stringing us up.

Sylvia Heal: That is entirely the Minister's responsibility.

Denis MacShane: The thought of stringing up any Member in this debate might appeal to some but not to me. I am a pacifist kind of person. I shall make these remarks as short as possible, to leave more time for the hon. Gentleman to contribute to the next section of the debate. I would not deprive the House of that pleasure.

Richard Spring: As the Minister is making his remarks so brief, I am sure he will not mind if I intervene on him. It is a little unclear to me what point he is making. He said that there was never any difficulty and, in practice, nothing happened on enhanced co-operation after Amsterdam. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom Government were willing to give up the veto based on the theoretical idea that, somehow, a member state would hold up that process. There has been no evidence of that happening so far, yet our national interests, which are obviously vital, have been given up. Some very confused thinking is coming from the Minister, in relation to practice and to theory. Will he clarify the Government's thinking on this matter?

Denis MacShane: It is very clear that we are preparing for an enlarged EU. We want the great democracies of Europe to come home to join the European Union. Since the treaty of Nice, the Conservatives have said consistently that they wish to oppose that process. That is the huge difference between many Opposition Members and Members on this side of the House—and, I suspect, the man who emerged as winner of the poll whose result has just been announced. I hope that the House as a whole will now revert to where I think British interests lie, and call for the enlargement of the European Union, rather than seeking to put barriers in the path of that process, as some Opposition Members are doing.

Richard Spring: I do not understand the Minister's difficulty in answering the question. Enlargement is one issue; enhanced co-operation is another, separate issue dealing with a more limited group of countries, which in no way impairs enlargement. I would like an explanation of the Government's thinking. I have not received one so far, and I am disappointed in the Minister. Will he please explain what has happened since Amsterdam to make the Government change their mind in this way?

Denis MacShane: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the safeguards on enhanced co-operation have now been built more strongly into the Nice treaty by the reference to the Council, constituted by the elected Governments responsible to this and the other Parliaments of the European Union. The basic principle remains: one cannot support the principle of enhanced co-operation, as the Conservative party did in its manifesto, while demanding that the Nice provisions that will allow it to work be struck down. Unlike the Opposition, on their showing today, we see enhanced co-operation as an opportunity, not a threat.
	There are a number of scenarios in which Britain might want actively to join in areas of enhanced co-operation, and it is right that I should put those to the House. In the community pillar, for example, the UK might want to join an initiative on scientific research while some other member states might not, or to participate in an initiative to improve transport links between the UK and neighbouring member states.
	In the common foreign and security pillar, the UK might want to join other interested member states in implementing a common EU policy in Africa, such as managing election monitors. In justice and home affairs, it is possible to imagine the UK joining a group of member states to agree tough action on an issue that directly affected only a small group of countries, such as drug trafficking across the North sea. All in all, the improved enhanced co-operation arrangements are a valuable feature of the treaty. We strongly support them and, for that reason, we reject the amendments tabled on these issues.

William Cash: By making such a brief and ineffective speech, the Minister has opened up an opportunity, which I shall not miss, to give a proper explanation of the implications of enhanced co-operation. I can do so in a manner that will undoubtedly illuminate the Government as well as, I hope, people outside who are interested in learning more about its operation.
	We have already discussed the fact that enhanced co-operation can be undertaken only as a last resort when no further progress can be made in the Council of Ministers under the existing rules. Thus it can be seen from the provisions that countries with misgivings, such as the United Kingdom, apparently had the satisfaction of having many of their demands met. That is easier said than done.
	The question is, who decides whether the provisions are satisfied or not? We see that, in the voting rules, enhanced co-operation in all areas can be decided with a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers. That means 62 of 87 votes at present, or 169 of 237 votes from 2005, or 258 of 345 in an EU of 27 countries. In an enlarged EU, the 13 smallest countries could be voted down by the 14 largest. In theory, the 14 largest countries could also introduce enhanced co-operation between themselves, or between eight of them, an arrangement with which 13 other countries would not be happy.
	Conversely, three large countries, including Germany, could prevent enhanced co-operation, which might be desired by 24 other member states. Now that we have got down to a proper analysis of what is going on, hon. Members are perhaps beginning to see what a mess all this is. I shall continue until I finish explaining to the Committee for the record exactly what it is all about.
	The qualified majority itself decides what is possible. The blocking minority can prevent the decision. If the opponents do not have a blocking minority of 26 of 87 votes, or the corresponding number after 2005, enhanced co-operation can be established. It may be possible to avert clear breaches of the agreed conditions with the aid of the Court of Justice, but as we all know, the Court of Justice, with its judicial activism, has been the most powerful engine of integration. It considers its task and its objective to be extending European integration, not bringing it to an end.
	I move to a question that I regard as of great importance: the weakening of the small countries' negotiating position. There is something pretty disgusting about the manner in which people pontificate about this European Union as if it benefits everybody in equal measure. Let us cut the cackle and get down to the facts. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) to laugh, but does he think it a good thing to bulldoze and blackmail the smaller countries?

Mark Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to intervene. The debate is about countries that want to get on with it, not bulldozing or blackmailing. Those who do not want to get involved can stay out. I would be grateful if he said what enhanced co-operation is about, instead of making up his own fiction.

William Cash: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would include as a little bit of fiction the vote by the Irish in their recent referendum. Ireland is a small country, which is one reason why its people took such exception to being bulldozed. That was a main argument made by the no campaign and it is proof of what I am saying. The same goes for the Danes.
	If we are to start trotting out remarks on what happens when the Danes hold a referendum, I should say that I was in Denmark when they voted on the Maastricht treaty. I campaigned for and with the Danish people with their consent, and enthusiastic consent at that. The bottom line is that we won that debate. And what happened afterwards? The Konrad Adenauer Siftung, in its journal "German Comments", said in an editorial—I paraphrase, but this is what it came down to—"Something very dangerous is going on in Europe today. Elections are being used as a means of protest. This must be stopped."
	That is the kind of language that we are hearing. That is the kind of blackmailing and bulldozing that I am talking about. The British people must be told about it, and this forum—this House of Commons—gives me an opportunity to explain it.
	There is a gentleman across the way who is shaking his head. I do not know his constituency, but if he wants to shake his head, let him rise to his feet and dispute what I have just said—or does he not have the nerve to do so?

Chris Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for enticing me to my feet, but his argument is completely fallacious. He seems to be saying that the people of Ireland should be allowed to make a decision on behalf of the whole of the rest of the European Union, which is fundamentally anti-democratic. A similar point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies).
	It is all important that, in any consideration of the use of enhanced co-operation, we take account of the views of smaller member states that might indeed constitute eight states wanting to co-operate. It would be profoundly anti-democratic of us to decide that we should be able to create a veto to prevent them from doing so.

William Cash: Let me quote from the no campaign literature, which represents the successful side in the debate in Ireland.
	"Very Basic Facts on the Nice Treaty.
	1. Nice is about shifting power in the EU from the Small States to the Big States. 2. Nice divides Europe into first-class and second-class Members, breaking up the EU partnership of legal equals. It provides the necessary legal path to making possible German Chancellor Schroder's plan to turn the EU Commission into a European Government, with harmonised company taxes . . . ".
	I pay tribute to the perception of my right hon. Friend—in this case—the Member for Llanelli, who, in a brilliant speech, exposed exactly how enhanced co-operation would achieve that objective.
	The campaign literature continues:
	" . . . an end to the basis of our 'Celtic Tiger' economy—and a Constitution that would give the EU Court the final say on our human rights. 3. Nice is about abolishing the national veto in 30 areas and centralising more power in Brussels. It trebles the votes of the Big States in making EU laws"—

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: No, I will not. It goes on:
	" . . . while only doubling the votes of the Small States. This happens automatically in January 2005, even if not a single new Member has joined the EU by then."
	The reason I will not give way is this: I think it at least helpful to try to get across just exactly, for example, what the Irish people did vote on. Both the hon. Member for Preston and the hon. Gentleman whom I enticed to intervene—

Chris Bryant: My constituency is Rhondda.

William Cash: They may find that what I am quoting is not what I have said but what the no campaign in Ireland has said.

Menzies Campbell: rose—

William Cash: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I rather enjoy his interventions.

Menzies Campbell: Me too.
	If the Irish people are as perspicacious as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why does he think that they voted to join the single European currency?

William Cash: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should cast his mind back to that particular referendum and debate, which took place some time ago. He should bear it in mind that the Irish Government clearly did not think the Irish people would vote the way they did. It was precisely because of the compelling nature of the arguments that they did so.
	I have here a paper published by the Referendum Commission, entitled "An Insight into the Treaty of Nice: Your Voice, Your Choice. Treaty of Nice 2001". It is a formal publication by the Referendum Commission. It is on the web at www.refcom.ie. Anyone who wants to read it can visit the site, rather than me reading it all out today.

Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: I will. I am glad that we are beginning to have a debate because I have not started yet by a long way.

Michael Connarty: I find the hon. Gentleman's comments slightly disingenuous. A number of my relatives live in Ireland. They told me that the biggest argument in their area was that, if Ireland agreed to enlargement, it would lose the grants it received from the EU: they would go to places such as Poland and other parts of the eastern bloc. That is what influenced a lot of people to whom I have spoken in Ireland to vote in that way. Believe it or not, other people do not read the esoteric documents that so delight the hon. Gentleman.

William Cash: It so happens that the document to which I have referred was sent to every person in the Irish Republic, so the hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. The Irish no campaign made the point that Nice is not primarily about EU enlargement. It argued that it is about dividing Europe along the lines that many of us have described today.
	On the grants, to answer that question directly, long before the Irish referendum came up, everyone knew that the Irish grants were going to disappear by 2006 at the latest. The Irish have known that for the best part of eight years, so there is nothing new in it. I do not see what the hon. Gentleman's point is. They knew it before they even voted on the treaty.

Several hon. Members: rose—

William Cash: I shall carry on a little because I would like to develop the point about the weakening of small countries' negotiating positions.
	We have seen the rules of play for new enhanced co-operation. If a country says no to an extension of EU co-operation—for example, because it has been rejected in a referendum—the countries that want it can simply go ahead on their own and use the Union's institutions for a purpose that voters may have expressly rejected. That procedure can be used for proposals on which a large majority of the European electorate, according to public opinion surveys, agree with the nation that rejected the proposals in a referendum. The fact that a scheme of enhanced co-operation can be voted through by majority decision—that takes us back to the group of amendments that we considered at the beginning of these debates—limits the capacity of Government to negotiate in the EU.
	As I said earlier and on Second Reading, two parallel operations are running together. One is enhanced co-operation and the other is qualified majority voting. They interweave to achieve the objectives. It is all part of a seamless operation to take us further and deeper into European integration. Indeed, during the negotiations on the treaty of Nice, the Danish negotiator, Mr. Cristofferson, often said that if this or that wording were adopted there would be a referendum in Denmark—heaven forbid. Hence there would be a risk of the entire treaty being rejected. For those reasons, they were frightened sick of another referendum in Denmark. In every single instance it is the elite that is heeded, not the people, because they have common sense: the Swiss people, the Danes, the Irish and for that matter the people of the United Kingdom, particularly under the potential new leadership of the Conservative party.

Stephen Ladyman: I fail to understand how the hon. Gentleman can argue that small countries are being bulldozed when each one of them has an absolute veto over the treaty. Unless every one of those countries agrees to the treaty, there will be no treaty. How can that be bulldozing them? They should make the decision in their interest. We should be debating what is in our interest, not going over the Irish interest, as the hon. Gentleman is.

William Cash: Not so. The fact is that we are all affected by what goes on in the other countries. The difficulty is that there is a referendum only in a limited number of countries. That is the point that I am making.
	One cannot say that the people of any particular country have consented to the invasion of their right to decide who governs them—which is what the process is all about—if they have not been given a referendum. That is why I argued for a referendum from the very earliest days after Maastricht. I ran the Maastricht referendum campaign, for which I obtained 500,000 signatures, and have consistently campaigned for a referendum ever since.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is going a little wide of the amendment.

William Cash: I am quite happy to accept that. There are many issues that one might raise, and fortunately we have enough time to raise some of them.

Richard Spring: I am not sure about that.

William Cash: We are heading that way.
	The consent of the people would be gained in referendums. The issue of whether a small country's negotiating position would be adversely affected and weakened is directly related to the issue of consent.

Stephen Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: Only once more.

Stephen Ladyman: Our country has just had the ultimate referendum, a general election. Conservative Members said that the general election would be a referendum on Europe and European matters. Labour Members made clear our position on those matters and on the treaty of Nice and we won that general election. How therefore can the hon. Gentleman say that the United Kingdom has not been consulted?

William Cash: I do indeed say that. First, in the last general election, the Government made absolutely no attempt to address the European issue. Secondly, the Conservative party failed in that election to address the issue properly. All we did was to talk about not being run by Europe without explaining the impact of, for example, the European monetary rules on public expenditure. Nor did we point out the fact that we achieved a stable economy, which the current Government have inherited, only because we were out of the exchange rate mechanism. The Government now intend to re-enter the ERM. However, I am digressing and shall not pursue that point.
	The bottom line is that there are very important issues in this business of enhanced co-operation, extending to enhanced judicial co-operation and the treaty establishing the European Community. Enhanced co-operation would extend to a range of matters. The vast impact that it would have is a matter of gravest concern. Every line of this Bill—it is subject to a programme motion, thereby preventing us from explaining precisely what is proposed in the treaty—is the equivalent of a whole Bill that it would take Parliament the best part of six months to consider and pass. That is what is so undemocratic about these arrangements.
	We are legislating on a monumental scale. Many of the lines of this treaty which we shall be enshrining in statute are the equivalent of an entire Bill. I suggest that Labour Members carefully consider how democratic that is.
	Amendment negatived.

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 1, line 9, after "to", insert "4 and 6 to".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 39, page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 11'.
	No. 71, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 38'.
	No. 72, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 39'.
	No. 73, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 40'.
	No. 74, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 42'.
	No. 75, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 43'.
	No. 76, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 45'.
	No. 77, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 46'.
	No. 96, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 19'.
	No. 97, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 20'.
	No. 98, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 21'.
	No. 99, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 22'.
	No. 101, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 24'.

William Cash: We come now to an entirely different subject, social protection, which is very important and related to the blank cheque book that I have mentioned. What is actually happening is that we are introducing laws that are not capable of being reversed in any reasonable sense as any future amendment would require the agreement of all the member states. There is no apparent intention to amend the provisions, but they entail vast costs. It is perfectly right that there should be social protection in certain areas and I have never had a problem with that. Indeed, when my party was in government, we introduced laws—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help the Chair and explain how what he is now referring to relates to the amendment on various institutional matters. We are debating amendment No. 54.

Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose diligence on these matters is well known, he is not speaking to the amendments and I respectfully suggest that either we should move immediately to a conclusion or that he should speak to the subject we are debating.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have asked the hon. Gentleman to address the amendment under discussion.

William Cash: Under the circumstances, I am perfectly prepared to move on, as the Chair may request, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has some remarks to make on these provisions. By the time that he has finished, I will have had the opportunity to find the place in my notes. I understand what the Minister has said, and I am happy that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk should take up the thread.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman finished moving the amendment?

William Cash: Yes, indeed. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk to pick up the thread of the argument. I shall return to it later.

Richard Spring: This group is another miscellaneous group of provisions, and I shall keep my remarks short.
	Amendment No. 39 relates to the new Social Protection Committee. We will be discussing social policy in connection with new clause 6 at a later date, so at this stage perhaps the Minister could provide us with some further information on the role of that Committee.
	The issue arises from the Council decision of June 2000 setting up the Committee to strengthen co-operation on social protection policies. It is meant to promote exchanges of information, formulate opinions and the like. Its remit under the treaty has been expanded slightly, so that it will now be charged with monitoring the social situation in member states.
	This would appear to be another example of Ministers' views evolving somewhat during the Nice discussions. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) asked the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, about the Social Protection Committee during a debate in European Standing Committee C in November. The right hon. Lady said the proposal for a Committee would need to be examined very closely before it was given support. Can the Minister say why the result of that examination was to change ministerial scepticism into support? What was the reasoning behind establishing a new treaty base for the Committee and broadening its remit? Can he assure the House that this will not lead to a further increase in the number of social policy measures, including harmonisation, arising from the EU institutions? Each member state appoints two members of the Committee. Can he tell us how the UK representatives are chosen?
	Perhaps the Minister could also set out how he sees two of the other Committees included in this group developing in future years—namely, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Both sets of members will now be appointed by qualified majority voting.
	The Nice treaty stipulates that the Economic and Social Committee represents
	"the economic and social components of organised civil society".
	The Minister of State's predecessor told the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) in a written answer that the aim would be to make the UK delegation as representative as possible. What progress is being made in that respect?
	Finally, is it the intention that the role of the Committee of the Regions will increase? I appreciate that UK representatives on that Committee are all from local government, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies, but the same is not true of the appointments from other countries. There is some worry that the EU's concern for regions, including transnational regions, is intended to undermine Europe's national identities.
	Does the Minister agree that genuine decentralisation should be to local government, and that regional government is more distant from local communities? Will he be cautious about any expansion in the role of regionalism in the European Union?

Denzil Davies: The first amendment in this group is No. 54. I have always found it useful if the hon. Member moving an amendment reads out the bit that locates the text to be amended. In this case, it is clause 1, page 1, line 9. The amendment states:
	"after 'to', insert '4 and 6 to'"—
	which I assume means "to 10". The numbers refer to paragraphs in article 2. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am not right when I say that one of the amendment's purposes, therefore, is to delete paragraph 5 from article 2. Thanks to a piece of paper issued by the Foreign Office at the last minute, I have been able to find the treaty. Looking at paragraph 5 in article 2, I see that we are dealing once more with a subject that is an old friend. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister—whose letter I have not yet received—will not mind if I ask familiar questions.
	I think that paragraph 5 refers to article 100 in the consolidated treaty of the European Communities, which is to be replaced. Thanks to the bit of paper from the Foreign Office, I have found that as well. Basically, article 100 allows qualified majority voting in certain situations where unanimity was previously required. It has been around for a long time. The draftsmen, out of a sense of tidiness, have inserted a reference to "natural disasters", but, except for the phrase "qualified majority", there is little to distinguish the proposed change from the original version.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can answer some questions on article 100, which, in its new version, will state in paragraph 1 that
	"the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may decide upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation".
	I do not want to be a pedantic Welsh lawyer, but what is the word "the" doing there? Which economic situation are we talking about?
	The paragraph goes on to say
	"in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products."
	That is a complete mystery. I apologise again if I sound pedantic, but the House is legislating. The treaty is not the gobbledegook that the EU might churn out almost every two years, and one must hypothesise that it will become British law. If the matter ever came before the courts, lawyers could make a lot of money out of those words.
	To contend that the supply of certain products might be in difficulty in this world of global capitalism is a strange concept. Which products are we talking about? I presume that the supply will be difficult within the European Union. Perhaps the article is referring to oil. I do not know. Apart from Britain, none of the EU member states produce crude oil. May we be told which products? The type of products must be in the mind of the person who drafted article 100. That person did not pick the words "certain products" out of the air. What on earth is the first paragraph of article 100 getting at?

Chris Bryant: I presume that it refers to articles 95 and 96. My right hon. Friend is a far more able lawyer than me, but as memory serves me, those articles refer to state aid provisions. I presume that in that light article 100 makes sense.

Denzil Davies: I am not sure about that, although I do not criticise my hon. Friend. Article 100 comes under title VII entitled "Economic and monetary policy". Chapter 1 is entitled "Economic policy" and starts with article 98, I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend. Article 98 contains the terrible paragraph that upset the Irish. The powers in article 98.4 caused the Commission to issue a recommendation to the Irish Government saying that their economic policies were nonsense. That contributed to the defeat in the referendum. Article 98 comes under the heading of economic policy. My hon. Friend may be right—the article may be about state aids, but what are the products that are of considerable and fundamental importance to "the economic situation"?

William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on the possibility that the article is something to do with BSE and products that a country would normally expect to export. The supply of those products may be restricted due to the constraints that have been imposed.

Denzil Davies: That could be the case. We would like to know why we find concern about the supply of products in article 100.
	What sort of measures could be deemed appropriate? Paragraph 1 of article 100 does not mention money, although it could be referring to state aids. I am sure that the Foreign Office is well aware of these things and that there are bundles of papers in the basement somewhere to explain the drafting of the clause.
	I raised paragraph 2 of article 100 previously. It says:
	"Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters"—
	we understand that; it was in the original article in a different place—
	"or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance".
	What exceptional occurrences?

Chris Bryant: rose—

Denzil Davies: Perhaps my hon. Friend is now about to mention state aids. I do not see where it fits in.

Chris Bryant: Article 87 was formerly article 92, which refers to state aids. It makes it clear that there are certain situations in which state aid is legitimate. I presume that those provisions follow into the legislation that we are discussing.

Denzil Davies: I am glad that my hon. Friend is presuming that. I have discovered in debates over 30 years on these treaties that one should presume as little as possible. It may well be to do with state aids. The money seems to be coming from the other countries—financial assistance is given to the member state. I thought that state aid was given by the member state to itself. I am not sure about that, however.

Chris Bryant: This is becoming a debate—I do apologise.

Peter Atkinson: This is not a court of law.

Chris Bryant: Indeed; I am sorry. My right hon. Friend is right—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could address the Chair?

Chris Bryant: I am sorry, Mrs. Heal. My right hon. Friend is correct that in the majority of cases in the past, state aid has referred exclusively to the provision not just of financial assistance but of many other forms of assistance to organisations within the member state. However, if there were to be an earthquake in Turkey, for example, it might be appropriate for other member states across the European Union to provide financial assistance to organisations in Turkey. There is a danger that without reform of the present law, that might constitute state aid, to which others might take objection.

Denzil Davies: I would like to give my hon. Friend my copy of the treaty. This is not about aid to Turkey but to other member states. The treaty says
	"the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance to the Member State concerned."
	That does not mean Turkey, unless Turkey is a member state.

Chris Bryant: That is the point that I was making.

Denzil Davies: I thought that my hon. Friend was assuming that Turkey was outside. In any case, the assistance goes to the member state. What exceptional circumstances, apart from national disasters, did the draftsmen have in mind?

William Cash: I should have thought that foot and mouth disease might well be covered by exceptional circumstances. The treaty refers to exceptional occurrences beyond a member state's control. Given that aid to the tune of about £4 billion a year has been given to the German coal miners, our farming community, tourism industry and all areas of the British countryside affected by foot and mouth could qualify, on that basis, for several billion pounds worth of aid to get everything back on course.

Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It may have been under article 100, or perhaps it was under the common agricultural policy, that assistance was given to the United Kingdom in respect of BSE. No doubt the Minister will tell us what is meant by "exceptional circumstances."
	I come back to the important point before us. We have given up the veto again. The Government argue that it is technical and not important in these areas. Basically, they are saying, "Who cares?" Well, one should care about it. We would not necessarily veto this measure, but it has financial implications and, ultimately, those financial implications concern the member state.
	The President of the Commission wanted a European tax, but Finance Ministers gave that proposal short shrift. Ultimately, if something costs money, the cost falls on us. For the Government to argue that it does not matter is, at the least, cavalier. This is another area in which the veto is important. Nothing could be more important than finance and taxation. For the Government to give up the veto when money can be paid out was irresponsible. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will disagree with me, and I hope that he will give me the answers for which I have asked.

Menzies Campbell: I share the view of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) that the effect of the amendment is to excise article 5 of the Nice treaty. Article 5 of the treaty, which can be found on page 45 of Cm 5090, would add a paragraph 10.6 to article 10.

Chris Bryant: It is article 2, section 5 that is being replaced, not article 5. It can be found on page 16 of the treaty.

Menzies Campbell: No, I think that I am right—[Hon. Members: "You are."] I appear to have support from quarters that have not commonly been supportive in recent times in this debate.
	The right hon. Member for Llanelli expresses the view that article 5 would be removed if the amendment were accepted. If that be correct—

Denzil Davies: I thought that it was paragraph 5 of article 11, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) says, can be found on page 16. However, I may be wrong about that.

Menzies Campbell: As I appear to have support from a variety of quarters, I shall press on. Our debate has been hindered to a degree by the absence of the usual lucid and clear exposition of the position by the hon. Member for Stone.
	Assuming I am right—my view appears to be shared by others—we turn our attention to article 5, on page 45 of the treaty, Cm 5090. There, one finds that article 5 provides for an amendment to article 10 of the protocol on the statute of the European system of central banks and of the European central bank. It would add to article 10 a new provision, paragraph 10.6, the effect of which is to provide that article 10.2 of the protocol can be amended by the Council, provided it is done unanimously and in accordance with the respective constitutional requirements of the countries that are engaged.
	That is what I understand to be the position of the hon. Member for Stone, for which there is some support. In his pamphlet on Nice, the hon. Gentleman deals with the question of the new procedures set out in article 10.6 of the protocol, stating that the new arrangement will
	"introduce the possibility of abolishing equality"
	in the equal voting rights of governors. No doubt, with the benefit of consideration, he will be able to tell us more about that view, but if he persists in pressing amendment No. 54, I shall certainly resist it.
	Currently, the rules of the European central bank reflect neither the populations nor the gross domestic product differentials of the member states. On some future occasion, it may well be considered necessary to amend the deliberative procedures of the ECB, It strikes me as sensible to provide that the procedures are able to be amended, and that is what new paragraph 10.6, which we find on page 45 of Cm 5090, would provide. It seems to me that adequate protection for the interests of the United Kingdom is provided because any amendment has to be unanimous and has to be ratified by the constitutional provisions of all the countries that seek to take part in such a process.
	In so far as amendment No. 54 would delete article 5, it is self-defeating, because the deletion of article 5 would be against the interests of the people of the United Kingdom and, more generally, against the interests of those who want the ECB voting procedures to be controlled or regulated by an arrangement that better reflects either GDP differentials of member states or their populations. Given the remarks made earlier today by hon. Member for Stone, I should have thought that he would argue for the retention of article 5 rather than its removal.

Peter Hain: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Menzies Campbell) for adding clarity and light to the issue. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) that the amendment does not refer to article 100. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it refers to article 5 of the Nice treaty, which is the protocol on the European central bank statute. I did not want to intrude on the interesting dialogue between my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and my right hon. Friend, but there we have it.

Menzies Campbell: I hope that the Minister will not think it immodest to suggest that one Scots lawyer is equal to two Welsh ones.

Peter Hain: I could not possibly agree with that, and nor would you, Mrs. Heal, as a good Welsh girl.
	The Nice treaty is about a lot of things. In respect of the amendments, it is about reforming and modernising the European Union's institutions for enlargement. That is what the amendments are seeking to wreck. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) quite properly asked a series of questions about the Committees and I shall seek to answer them.
	The Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee are important and they need reforming. That is why we agreed at Nice that the UK delegations to the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee should remain the same size, with a full 24 United Kingdom representatives on each. Both Committees will expand with enlargement, but there will be no change to the balance struck at Maastricht. We and the other big member states will retain more seats than anybody else.
	The Nice treaty also requires that the Committee of the Regions should comprise representatives who are elected to a local regional authority or who are accountable to an elected assembly. The current practice in Britain is indeed to nominate people for membership who already hold an electoral mandate, so there will be no change to our appointment procedure. Nice brings others into line with our democratic standards. The treaty also introduces qualified majority voting for appointments to the two Committees. That makes sense too. In practice, no member state ever objects to another's nominations. That is another prudent efficiency measure.
	In respect of the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife on the European central bank, the future of the ECB after enlargement is an important issue. The Nice treaty changes the ECB's statute to allow the voting rules in the ECB's governing council to be amended by EU heads of state and the Government acting unanimously. That will allow the European Council to decide how the ECB should best function after enlargement.
	However, any changes to the ECB's voting rules will still require unanimity—a point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and ratification by all member states in accordance with their own constitutional provisions. That will ensure that British interests are fully protected and preserved, which I would have thought everybody would welcome, too.
	Britain is one of the four major shareholders in the European investment bank, with nearly 18 per cent. of shares. The board currently has 38 members. Britain and the other three large states each have five full directors and two alternates. The distribution of shareholdings between the member states will need to be adjusted to include the candidate states when they become members. We must provide for changes in the composition and voting arrangements of the board of directors to accommodate enlargement. The provisions of Nice allow those decisions to be taken in the Council, but only by unanimity. British interests will again be protected—again I would have thought that that would be welcomed.
	I turn to one additional point of substance. We all agreed on the Social Committee at Lisbon that our systems of social protection would need to be modernised to cope with the new flexible marketplace and knowledge-based economy. The Social Committee already monitors the development of social protection policies in member states and promotes exchanges of information and experience among them.
	The Nice treaty gives the Committee a proper legal base. It provides for the Council to act by qualified majority voting in formally setting up the Committee, but there is no question of the Committee forcing change on national social security systems. The Committee will prepare reports and opinions, and that is its job. However, if the Commission chooses to take those up in legislative proposals, they will be subject to the unanimous approval of the Council, as for all social security and social protection legislation. I should have thought that even the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would welcome that.
	I shall address one more issue in case I do not have a chance to do so before the end of this debate. It concerns a matter raised by the hon. Member for Stone on the question of child abduction. That matter is dealt with in amendment No. 233, which I accept does not come under the umbrella of the amendments that we are discussing, but I want to make a brief point that may help the House.
	I understand and share the concerns of the hon. Member for Stone about child abduction, which is an international injustice and crime. As he knows, his representations have encouraged me to look closely at the issue. I, too, am keen to consider improvements to international rules and, to that end, I should like to invite him, and other members of the all-party group on child abduction, to discuss with me ways in which we can advance work in that area. I shall also ask a Minister from the Lord Chancellor's Department to join us if possible. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, so that he may not need to press his amendment to a vote at 10 o'clock.
	Finally, lest there be any complaints—I have recently heard mutterings from the Opposition—about lack of time to discuss all these matters, I gently draw everybody's attention to the last full day's debate on the Bill. There were five Conservative speakers and six Labour speakers. The five Conservative speakers took three hours, five minutes; the six Labour speakers took one hour forty-five minutes. Three Conservative speakers took two hours, twenty minutes to make their points. I do not think that there is any reason for arguing in another place or here that there has not been time to address all the issues seriously. If people had been a little less long-winded, all the points that they made could have been addressed.

William Cash: First, I thank the Minister not only for his concluding remarks but for his generous offer on child abduction, an issue about which he knows I feel strongly—as, I suspect, do many Members on both sides of the House. There has been a great step forward; I hope that we can build on that and achieve some protection, both for the children themselves, in this country and throughout Europe, and for parents affected by child abduction.
	Briefly, on article 10 of the statute of the European system of central banks and of the European central bank, perhaps the Minister was a trifle disingenuous because he omitted to mention the fact that we have argued that the Nice treaty introduces the possibility of abolishing equal voting rights for ECB governors. I acknowledge that proposed article 10.6 is governed by unanimity, but recommendation 19 insists that work will begin speedily on reviewing paragraph 2—in other words, it gives a pretty firm indication that the balance currently maintained by the unanimity of voting rights on the ECB is under threat; otherwise, why have recommendation 19 at the end of article 10? In other words, the larger countries appear to be gearing up to grab more power from the smaller ones which, again, fits in with the arguments that I have already advanced on enhanced co-operation.
	The tendency towards a combination of larger states and QMV illustrates the point that I have repeatedly made: the larger states will increase their power. The question is, who will they be? From the voting arrangements that have been set out—double majority voting and the rest of it—they will include our friend Germany yet again; we need to watch out for those things. In an opinion poll, the German people have just said that they want to keep the deutschmark, but would be glad if we managed to lose the pound. It all comes down to one simple thing; they are sensible, and we have to be equally sensible ourselves.
	We can now expect a major pro-euro argument to collapse. The larger economies, particularly Germany, will eventually gain the most political and economic power in the ECB. Furthermore, nation states cannot legally instruct the ECB because, we remember from Maastricht, the governors of the banks congregating at the ECB cannot seek or take instructions from member states. So we have a problem in relation to the powers that are exercised over interest rates and inflation, for example. It is an unaccountable arrangement that affects UK voters. Yet at the same time, running in parallel, is a tendency towards an increase in the power of the larger states at the expense of the smaller ones.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I shall not press the amendment to a vote, and that is in the interests of my colleagues who are outside celebrating other things. The Committee will have an opportunity to vote on clause 1 stand part. There is no need for me to say anything further on that subject. For the record, in the light of what the Minister had to say, I shall also not press amendment No. 233 on child abduction to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in clause 1, in page 1, line 9, after "to", insert "5 and 7 to".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 1, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 32.'.
	No. 62, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 26'.
	No. 63, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 27'.
	No. 64, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 28'.
	No. 65, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 31'.
	No. 66, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 33'.
	No. 67, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 34'.
	No. 68, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 35'.
	No. 85, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 8'.
	No. 86, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 9'.
	No. 87, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 10'.
	No. 88, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 11'.
	No. 89, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 12'.
	No. 90, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 13'.
	No. 91, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 14'.
	No. 92, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 15'.
	No. 93, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 16'.
	No. 108, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 8'.
	No. 109, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 9'.
	No. 110, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 10'.
	No. 111, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 11'.
	No. 112, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 12'.
	No. 113, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 13'.
	No. 114, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 14'.
	No. 115, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 15'.
	No. 116, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 16'.
	No. 130, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 1 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 131, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 132, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols" insert—
	'(other than Article 3 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 133, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 4 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 134, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 5 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 135, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 6 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 136, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 7 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 137, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 8 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 138, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 9 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 139, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 10 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 140, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 11 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 141, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 12 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 142, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 13 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 143, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 14 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 144, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 15 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 145, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 16 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 146, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 17 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 147, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 18 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 148, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 19 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 149, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 150, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 21 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 151, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 22 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 152, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 23 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 153, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 24 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 154, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 25 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 155, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 26 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 156, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 27 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 157, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 28 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 158, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 29 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 159, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 30 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 160, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 31 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 161, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 32 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 162, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 33 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 163, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 34 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 164, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 35 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 165, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 166, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 167, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 38 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 168, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 39 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 169, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 40 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 170, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 41 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 171, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 42 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 172, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 43 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 173, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 44 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 174, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 45 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 175, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 46 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 176, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 177, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 48 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 178, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 49 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 179, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 50 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 180, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 51 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 181, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 52 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 182, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 53 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 183, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 184, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 55 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 185, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 56 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 186, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 57 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 187, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 58 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 188, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 59 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 189, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 60 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 190, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 61 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 191, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 62 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 192, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 63 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 193, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 64 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
	No. 32, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, after "or", insert—
	'save in relation to section 3(1) of this Act.'.
	New clause 29—Extension of jurisdiction of European Court of Justice: legal advice—
	'.—This Act shall not come into force until Her Majesty's Government has obtained specific legal advice from the Attorney General setting out the extent to which the provisions of the Treaty of Nice extend the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the United Kingdom, such advice to form the basis of a report to each House of Parliament and to be subject to an affirmative resolution.'.

William Cash: The amendments deal with the European Courts. As Members may know, there are severe reservations about the extent and range of the judicial activism of those courts. I think that those matters have been explained so often in the House of Commons that there is no need for us to go through every detail of them, and I have no intention of so doing.
	I merely draw attention to the application of qualified majority voting to the determination of the European Courts' rules of procedure. This applies with respect to the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. I think that it is stated in "Maine's Ancient Laws" that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure. We are dealing with an issue that needs to be thought out carefully. The white book governs the panoply of procedure in the High Court, and it would be affected. So much of the law in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 is already part of our law.
	In so far as the overriding superior law of the Court of Justice is to be modified by qualified majority vote, let us consider the downstream impact of that in respect of any decisions regarding procedure that may be taken with regard to our High Court procedures. It is a point worth considering. As with so many of these matters, in one line we can make amendments that are the equivalent of an entire Bill which it could take the House up to six months to produce and deliberate on.

Chris Bryant: That is clearly untrue. The procedures have not forced the Napoleonic code on British law. There is no reason to suppose that any changes in the procedure should enforce radical changes across British law.

William Cash: That is a fairly astonishing statement given the effect of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. However, it is such an irrelevant point that I am not even prepared to respond to it. I leave my argument where it stands and invite my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) to take up the rest of the time that is allotted if he wishes to do so.

Richard Spring: Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will appreciate that the changes addressed by the amendments are complex. The driving force behind the reforms proposed at Nice is the increasing volume of business in the European Courts. There is no controversy over that. If that increased volume of business is taken as read, some of the reforms in the treaty might be considered necessary, but that is a big "If". I shall return to that point in a moment.
	I want to make a number of specific points in connection with the reforms with which the amendments deal. I hope that the Minister will address our concerns. First, it is proposed that the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance be expanded. Amendment No. 55 would prevent the members and registrar of that court from being added to the list of Community representatives covered by the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. More importantly, the Nice treaty would give the Court of First Instance jurisdiction to hear certain categories of preliminary reference cases. Does the Minister recognise that such cases can often be important, as they are the appeal route from national courts to the European Court of Justice?
	Secondly, it is proposed that the Council be given power to attach judicial panels to the Court of First Instance to hear specified classes of business. That is provided for in the treaty of Nice. Such panels might hear competition cases or appeals from the Community trade marks and designs registry. There are numerous cases in both those fields. In effect, a three-tier appellate structure is now developing, with the creation of a further tier of courts below the Court of First Instance. There will be first-instance courts and the judicial panels, and above them, an intermediate appeal court—the Court of First Instance. Above that court, there will be the supreme court: the European Court of Justice.
	Does the Minister agree that the existence of the panels will make it easier to expand the direct jurisdiction of European—as opposed to national—courts in proceedings that involve the direct application of Community law to citizens? It might be said that the growth of the European court system into a full three-tier appellate structure is inevitable given the growth of jurisdictions and the increase in the number of cases going into that system, but one must question fundamentally that growth in jurisdictions and competences. It arises partly because of the flow of legislation, the nature of the court itself and its belief that it needs to continue to further the cause of European integration. As we have repeatedly pointed out, if the mincing machine is becoming clogged up, the best approach might be to try to force less mince through, but instead, the EU keeps installing ever-more powerful engines.
	The institutions of the EU need to learn to do less and to do it better. That applies to the volume of legislation and also relates to the growing concern about the integrationist nature of the court and its tendency sometimes to extend competence beyond what was envisaged in the treaties.

Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Spring: I am just about to conclude my remarks. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way, but we have many matters with which to deal.
	Will the Minister confirm that the change in definition introduced by the Bill would require our courts to follow decisions of the Court of First Instance or the judicial panel? That could mean that our higher courts, including even the House of Lords, have to follow points of EC law that have been decided by judicial panels at a relatively low level, including, for example, the trade mark office boards of appeal at Alicante.
	I realise that I am putting very technical points to the Minister, but I remind him that they have an important impact on our judicial processes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give the House some assurances in that respect.

Peter Hain: In direct response to the points made by the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), let me say that an important part of the changes is the package of reforms to deliver a more effective system for justice in the European Union that will cut delays. The British Government have worked hard to achieve that package. Indeed, we overcame the objections of some other member states by insisting that it was included on the 2000 intergovernmental conference agenda.
	The hon. Member for Stone asked about qualified majority voting for changes to the rules of procedure for the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. It is important for us to secure that change, as it will make it easier to reach agreement in the Council on proposals to enable courts to organise their work effectively and especially to improve how they work within their existing powers. He will be pleased to know that the change does not hold any constitutional phantom threats for him. It is about making access to justice quicker and easier.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk raised a series of issues which do not apply. The changes introduced by the Nice treaty are much more modest. In particular, to address the hon. Gentleman's first point, the treaty gives the Council the power, by unanimity, to transfer jurisdiction for certain specific categories of case from the European Court of Justice to the Court of First Instance, including preliminary references. That will ease the caseload burden on the European Court of Justice. That is all that this is about.

Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: Not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk also asked about the enabling provision to set up judicial panels, as a third tier in the courts, to help relieve the caseload of the Court of First Instance, for example by dealing with specialised areas, such as staff cases. Those panels will be an integral part of the court architecture and each will be set up by the Council by unanimity.
	The creation of such panels is a way of easing the pressure on the Court of First Instance. No big issue is involved here. That is precisely the type of reform that we wanted, to build new flexibility into the court system so that it can adapt its working practices and cut delays in administering justice.

Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: I am sorry, but I am short of time and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber much this afternoon.
	The Nice treaty also agrees changes that will lead to improvements in the courts' efficiency and effectiveness. Those changes, which will speed up access to justice and build greater flexibility into the court system, will be good for British business and for British citizens. One need only consider the French ban on British beef to see that efficient courts are in the UK's interests. The courts uphold Community law in areas such as the single market. That is vital to enable British business to function effectively.
	By opposing the ratification of the Nice treaty, the Conservative party demonstrates that it puts its own partisan interests before the interests of British business. The Government encourage the Opposition to reconsider their position in opposing such necessary, beneficial and modest reforms of the courts.
	All the changes set out at Nice will deliver better access to justice and contribute to the modernised, reformed EU that we want, better equipped to deal with enlargement. That is why we stand by them and reject the amendments.

Menzies Campbell: If the lead amendment were to be allowed it would have the effect of taking away the privileges and immunities that ought properly to be available to the Court of First Instance. That is a somewhat nihilistic approach. There may be points, such as those raised by the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), but to get rid of those privileges is unnecessarily apocalyptic.
	The treaty constitutes a reform of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. As the Minister has already said, an efficient and effective European Court of Justice is essential to the proper functioning of the EU and is in the interests of the British people. Without an effective court, there could not be an efficient single market.
	The Minister referred to the Commission taking France to the court in relation to lifting the ban on British beef, and there are similar examples, some perhaps not so enormous in their significance. For example, Greece was forced to open its markets to soft drinks from the UK because of an ruling by the European Court of Justice, and Spain has been forced to change regulations that prevented British confectioners from selling their products there. An efficient and effective court is in the interests of the EU, the single market and the people of the UK. The amendments should be resisted.

William Cash: The problem that we have with the court is its judicial activism. The more functions that are conferred on the EU in terms of European government and so on, the greater the power that the court has in respect of the government of Britain. The Minister has not referred to the European Parliament, but I do not criticise him for that because it has not been raised. However, the European Parliament will now have the right to bring actions to the European Court of Justice. In practice, that will be used to fight Council decisions which are deemed to be insufficiently centralising. We can expect the European Court of Justice to side with the European Parliament against the Council in such cases, thus reducing the power of national Parliaments. Again, that demonstrates the increasing power of the judiciary in the European Union. I warn hon. Members of all parties: watch this space.
	Amendment negatived.

Richard Spring: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 8.'.
	The Nice treaty goes beyond the extension of QMV. It represents the extension of Community competence beyond the existing common commercial policy to other aspects of services and intellectual property. Under the current mixed competence arrangements for overseas trade in services, member states take full part in bilateral negotiations with other World Trade Organisation members, but the Commission acts as lead negotiator in the WTO. Common positions are agreed unanimously with all EU member states. However, paragraph 8 of article 2 of the Nice treaty amends article 133 TEC to allow the Commission to negotiate, and the Council to agree external agreements on the trade in most services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property.
	In addition, agreement will usually be reached through QMV. Labour Members highlighted those provisions when mentioning the alleged benefits of extending QMV. Their view is that the Commission tends to have a liberalising agenda, ergo the move must be beneficial. By questioning it, Conservative Members are told that we stand in the way of liberalisation and trade. However, the changes to article 133 represent a significant extension of Community competence in aspects that are vital to the UK economy. It is disappointing that the Government are content to rubber-stamp them so casually.
	Perhaps it is true that the Commission would currently approach aspects of service trade agreements from a liberal perspective, but the extension of competence that we are discussing is not limited to specific agreements or times. Who is to say that the point of view of the Commission or the Governments of other member states, which are meant to guide the discussions, will not change? If it does, the House would be powerless to put the case for service trade discussions that are in the interests of this country or, as we perceive them, the EU as a whole.
	Britain tends to have an outlook that is generally more oriented to free trade in international negotiations than that of some of our partners. It could be argued that QMV means that the British point of view can prevail. However, it could also be argued that an alternative viewpoint could prevail over ours. No individual state will have a veto on the conclusion of agreements by the Community. That applies to Britain as much as any other country.
	The financial services sector is vital to the UK economy. Its importance continues to increase. Does not the Minister recognise that UK interests often differ from those of continental financial service centres? We have much more international business than our continental neighbours, especially in the bond and foreign exchange markets. The UK has massive investments outside the EU, and massive inward investment flows into this country from outside the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the Nice treaty provisions mean that the UK would be unable to negotiate with, for example, the United States or Japan, even when our interests diverge from those of the rest of the EU? Could our interests be overridden by QMV? If that is the case, are the Government as genuinely comfortable with the changes as they suggest?
	We are a trading nation par excellence and our capacity to continue as one needs to be assured.

Denzil Davies: I appreciate that the debate must end at 10 pm, but I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe one or two questions. We are considering an important change, which could be relevant to the general agreement on trade and services and the intellectual property aspect of the Uruguay round. One of the few occasions when the European Court of Justice supported member states was when it upheld the argument that they had a competence in negotiating trade in services. Now, of course, that competence has been taken away and, in effect, given to the Council of Ministers and the Commission. In effect, therefore, a veto that would otherwise have been available to member states has gone.
	New paragraph 5 of article 133—on page 17 of the treaty of Nice—refers to the
	"commercial aspects of intellectual property, insofar as those agreements are not covered by the said paragraphs and without prejudice to paragraph 6."
	Paragraph 7 also refers to intellectual property. What intellectual property is being referred to in paragraph 7 that is not included in paragraph 5? Paragraph 5 covers the commercial aspects of intellectual property. We are then told that other intellectual property agreements are covered by paragraph 7. I am not sure why it should be necessary to have a second paragraph. I would have thought that paragraph 5 would deal with the matter.
	Secondly, why was it felt necessary to get a derogation in respect of human health services? The French got a derogation in respect of cultural services, as I understand it. I am not saying that we should not have that derogation, but what are we talking about? What human health services would otherwise have been affected by the general agreement on trade and services? Is that what the derogation relates to?

Menzies Campbell: Following the point made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) a moment ago, I understand that the French insisted on agreements relating to trade in cultural and audio-visual services, educational services and social and human health services requiring unanimous agreement being required to remain matters of shared competence. Such agreements would be concluded jointly by the Community and the member states. Will the Minister confirm whether that is indeed the legal position and, if so, what reasoning lay behind it?

Peter Hain: I am grateful for the points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I continue to be amazed by the position taken by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring).

Richard Spring: Good.

Peter Hain: Well, perhaps I am not really amazed. Perhaps that is what one would expect from the Conservatives.
	These are important changes to the EC treaty that will bring real benefits to Britain. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) on the loss of the veto, because the common commercial policy helps the member states to combine their strengths to act as a liberalising force in the world market, which will help to open up overseas markets to British companies. That is the point of the measures. Those companies should be told about the Conservative party's position in wanting to block opportunities that will arise as a result of the changes in the Nice treaty.
	We have to be prepared to modernise if our economies are to adapt to this century. That is why we agreed to extend the scope of the common commercial policy to include some services and commercial aspects of intellectual property, as my right hon. Friend mentioned. Those sectors of the economy are increasingly important in the modern world. An example is financial services, in which Britain is especially competitive, and it is important that the European Union should throw its full weight behind discussions on such issues. Britain will benefit from the measures; that is why we supported them and why we completely reject the amendment.

William Cash: As has been said, the proposal brings in qualified majority voting for international trade agreements. Apart from extending the subject matter to intellectual property, this has a great deal to do with the obsession of France with cultural services. The article's main provisions on cultural services are a sop to France and its concern about losing the international cultural rules, as the French put it, to the United States of America. That is really what this is all about. Elements of unanimity remain, but this is eventually going to have a severe impact on much of the World Trade Organisation's negotiations, which will be affected in unpredictable ways.
	Amendment negatived.

Richard Spring: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 17'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 79, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 1'.
	No. 105, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 5'.
	No. 119, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than Article 1 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 120, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 121, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 122, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 123, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 124, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 125, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 126, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 127, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 128, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
	No. 129, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
	'(other than paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.

Richard Spring: Many issues covered by the amendment are vital to the functioning of a post-enlargement EU. I want to address the changes to the European Parliament and then issues connected with Council reweighting and the Commission's size. The amendment relates to the number of Members of the European Parliament. The new limit is set at 732 compared with the 700 envisaged previously, so that is yet another clear reversal of the Government's position.
	In March 2000, the former Minister for Europe told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the ceiling of 700 was an acceptable position. The former Foreign Secretary also opposed a two-stage transition to a lower limit for the number of MEPs. He said:
	"we are less convinced by the EP's idea of a two-stage transition. A single re-adjustment would avoid the need for two separate changes to national arrangements, and to predict how many new countries will accede in the period between 2004 and 2009. The accession of more than had been expected would lead to a breach of the 700 seat ceiling, from which it might subsequently be difficult to row back."
	Guess what happened at Nice? The Government agreed to just such a breach of the 700-seat ceiling. Does the Minister think that it has subsequently been difficult to row back? Are the Government rowing back from their original position or is it still their objective? Having set out the position of trying to keep in balance the size of the European Parliament, have they rowed back from it? Perhaps the Minister will explain his predecessor's failure to persuade others of the Government's case at Nice, which will be all too familiar to the former Foreign Secretary who is now on the Front Bench.
	I must deal with the reweighting in the Council and briefly discuss the amendment and the Commission's size. The Opposition have made it clear that they are willing to accept those provisions in the treaty of Nice as being connected with EU enlargement, which we passionately support. That is not to say that current arrangements are the biggest obstacle to speedy and successful enlargement. The biggest obstacles, such as an unreformed common agricultural policy, are not addressed in the treaty at all. Nor do we believe that the new arrangements are by any means perfect, but an EU preparing the way for enlargement needed to limit the size of the Commission and rebalance the votes in the Council, so we shall not vote against those changes.
	A number of comments have been made about Britain's relative influence under the revised voting procedures. I shall not go into detail about that, but I must ask the Minister about the attitude of EU leaders to the applicant states. Does he share our view on President Chirac's apparent assertion that it is
	"legitimate that old member states, who have contributed so much, have more votes than those who are new and will bring problems"?
	Does he regard that as acceptable or regrettable? In particular, as the Foreign Affairs Committee has noted, the Czech Republic and Hungary have both expressed disappointment that they were allocated two fewer European Parliament seats than Belgium, Greece and Portugal, which have similar populations. Malta also has concerns. Can he clarify whether those provisions in declaration 20 of the treaty of Nice are final?
	The Foreign Office memorandum was at pains to point out to the Select Committee that the vote weights in the declaration do not have legal force. Rather, they represent a political commitment and a guide for accession negotiations. It is said that any applicant country that feels that it has been unfairly treated is free to raise the matter during the negotiations, but that raises two questions. First, at Nice, why did Ministers once again agree to measures that they clearly do not support and are unable to defend? Secondly, if applicant countries raise the issue during the negotiations, can they hope to receive support from Her Majesty's Government?

Peter Hain: I disagree with all the points made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), which is why we call on the Committee to reject the amendment.
	It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to Orders [4 and 11 July], put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on clauses 1 to 4 to a conclusion.
	Amendment negatived.
	Question put, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill:—
	The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The First Deputy Chairman: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 367, Noes 146.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 83) (HC88) on Maintenance of Roads Grants 2001–02, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
	That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 82) (HC111) on 2001–02 Special Grants in connection with pilot Local Public Service Agreements, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

Transport (Scotland)

That the draft Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (Conditions attached to PSV Operator's Licence and Competition Test for Exercise of Bus Functions) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
	That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 85) (HC130) on Invest to Save Budget Round 3 projects, which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.

Social Security

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Social Security (Literacy Etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 18 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 86) (HC147) on 2001–02 Special Grant for Rate Relief in Respect of Hardship caused by Foot and Mouth Disease, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.— [Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Agriculture

That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
	That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.—[Jim Fitzpatrick].

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	Northern General Hospital, Sheffield

Helen Jackson: I wish to present to the House a petition from 62,000—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the House quickly and quietly?

Helen Jackson: I wish to present to the House a petition from 62,000 members of the community in south Yorkshire who oppose the possible closure of the heart transplant unit in Sheffield's Northern General hospital.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Health to intervene to ensure the continued functioning and development of the cardio-thoracic transplant unit at the Northern General Hospital.
	To lie upon the Table.

SOUTHEND (REGENERATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

David Amess: I think that the whole House recognises that Southend is the finest seaside resort in the country. Any hon. Member who saw the exhibition that we held in the Upper Waiting Room before the general election will have been truly impressed by the quality of the different facilities that Southend has to offer. It is a remarkable seaside resort. How could anyone not enjoy Rossi's glorious ice cream, a trip to the end of the longest pier in the world or the magnificent plants and shrubs that adorn the cliffs at the side of the Thames estuary?
	We recently had a magnificent air show, which attracted people from all over the country. I am very proud of the town of Southend, but, like so many seaside resorts, it faces a number of challenges. It is recognised, for instance, that holidays in this country are not as popular as they used to be. Air fares are much cheaper than they used to be, and our weather can be rather unpredictable, so it is clear that Southend and other resorts have lost much of the domestic business that they used to enjoy.
	For those and other reasons, Southend has found that it has had to reposition itself in the market. The House will know that, for two or three years, I urged the Government to support our bid for funding from the European Union, and the Government gave that support. I welcome the new Minister to her post, and I know that she will want to do her best to support my constituents in Southend, West.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is present, as is the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who takes a great interest in these matters. When we first tried to secure European funding some considerable time ago, we had meetings with Ministers at which it was well understood that five wards in Southend would be supported. Two of the wards to benefit were in my constituency, and the other three were in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
	I shall not bore the House with details of what went on, but without any warning I suddenly discovered that the two wards in my constituency would not receive any support because we had initially applied for funding under the fisheries strand. I was not involved in the process whereby that bid collapsed. All of a sudden, we found out that we qualified only under the urban strand. All five wards that qualified turned out to be those in the constituency of my hon. Friend. That was a huge disappointment to my constituents and to me.
	We had a debate in Westminster Hall about the bid. The then Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), was gallant and recognised that the matter could have been handled differently. That said, I felt that as we qualified under the urban strand, one of the wards in my constituency—Westborough—certainly would have met the criteria: but there we are, it was done and dusted. I hope that everything that I intend to put before the Minister will persuade her that the fishermen and women who were disappointed by what happened can take some encouragement from what we may be able to secure for them.
	The council has a good working relationship with regional organisations and the east of England objective 2 partnership. A number of projects in Southend are being developed with access to EU funding. Southend has recently been awarded £5.4 million of EU objective 2 funding, about which we are truly delighted. It will go towards a major £17 million project, to be known as Southend seafront high street and pier enhancement. Again, none of the wards falls in the constituency that I represent, but there is no doubt that the development will have a great impact on the whole of Southend and will attract more businesses and visitors to the town.
	The local authority welcomes the project and the financial support from Europe. We thank the Government for their backing, but in the midst of all this good news the fishing community is experiencing difficulties in obtaining financial support for a project that has great potential for innovation and diversity within the industry.
	I pay a warm tribute to two council officers, Philomena Kettlewell and Vivian Byczynski. They have worked hard to try to secure EU funding for the project, but it is a private project led by Mr. Michael King and Mr. Paul Gilson, who have done a splendid job in developing it. It is a remarkable scheme that everyone praises.
	The fishing grounds of the Thames estuary are under considerable pressure as a result of various EU restrictions, as Essex Members know. The number of fishermen has declined, and the retail price of fish has increased, to the disadvantage of the consumer. Fish farming and, more recently, genetically modified fish, have affected consumer confidence in the product. The programme would increase the number of harvestable fish in the area and the opportunity for fishermen to make a living in a manner that does not involve GM fish or fish farming. The project will also enable complementary industries such as marine engineering and transport to prosper. Scientific research associated with the project has educational and tourist potential and will enhance the image of the town, not that it needs too much of that, but I admit that I am biased.
	Dover sole, as most Essex Members know, is the most important fish caught in the Thames estuary. It is a high-value item, but stocks have decreased despite conservation measures. That species will form the thrust of the initial project. Adult fish caught in the wild in spawning conditions will be retained on board fishing vessels in special holding tanks and transferred ashore to fertilisation tanks on the same day. Once fertilised, the larvae will be grown in tanks—half will grow to 5 cm long and half to 10 cm—and then returned to the sea. They will be separately identified to compare survival of the different-sized released juveniles.
	Following the success of the Dover sole scheme and in order to utilise the facility throughout the year, the project leaders believe that the same procedure could be used with turbot and lobster. Lobsters, I am advised, have the advantage of not straying far, so they can be harvested locally. As major growth would take place in the sea, the image associated with fish farming would be avoided. They will be "wild fish".
	Hatcheries are already being run successfully in Canada and Japan, and some have recently been started in the British Isles. There is the Padstow lobster hatchery in Cornwall as well as the Wexford lobster co-op and the Dingle aquarium and flatfish hatchery, both in the Republic of Ireland. Members of the committee working on the project have visited all those sites. As far as they are concerned, the two hatcheries could be run in conjunction with an aquarium and would be well supported by local fishing industries and the local authority.
	The hatcheries in Dingle and Padstow are both adjacent to, and reliant on, aquariums. The equipment and expertise needed to operate an efficient aquarium are similar to those for a hatchery, so co-location is desirable. At present, the idea is that the Southend Sea Life centre, which has substantial advantages for the scheme, would be used as a main base, but a number of other possibilities are being explored.
	I hope that the Minister recognises that this project is very important for employment. Fishing has steadily declined in recent years—we are down to about 60 fishermen working in the area. The project would protect these jobs and we believe that there would be an increase in such employment. Members of the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee support it, as do others. Research is also crucial.
	Some might say that Mike King, the chairman of the project, has been using intemperate language about his disappointment. That is unfair, but he is somewhat frustrated about how the scheme has been handled. The committee first met in February 2000; the scheme was prepared for objective 2 funding, only to be told nine months later that fishing was excluded. The committee checked with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the latest funding became known. It was advised that it was okay, only to be told later that it was excluded because it was aquaculture. We do not have the time to go into detail in this short debate, and I will send the information to the Minister's office, but advice from Brussels seems to contradict that. I am not criticising civil servants or others; I am simply asking the Minister to ensure that we receive the correct information.
	Mike King believes that there are two issues. He believes that the scheme would be widely supported and that it is unable to proceed after 18 months owing to bureaucracy. He has found getting a straight answer about whether the scheme is viable to be a frustrating exercise. I shall not name names, but he is adamant that we were given the wrong information about the scheme at the start.
	From the local authority perspective, I pay tribute to Councillor David Garston and his vice-chairman, Mrs. Anna Whaite, who have done a magnificent job. They have asked me to draw to the Minister's attention a number of points in conclusion.
	We ask the Minister and her officials—I know that she will have to talk to those in other Departments—to see whether there is a way to help the fishermen through the difficulties from which their industry is suffering at the moment. Why are the funding restrictions such that the project faces so many obstacles, even though everyone seems to agree its merit and potential? I would like Government advice on how barriers can be broken down so that the most up to date and appropriate advice can be given to fishermen to support their initiative. I ask the Minister to assure the fishermen of Southend that every effort will be made to find a solution before the next bidding round, which I am advised will start in September. I therefore hope that, during the long summer recess, the new Minister will use her very best endeavours to bring some joy and hope to Southend fishermen.

Sally Keeble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate. He has eloquently explained the problems of Southend and even more eloquently set out its attractions. He has tread that very careful line between praising an area and recognising its problems.
	It is widely recognised that, despite its many attractions, Southend has a number of very long-standing problems. The district ranks among the most deprived in the east of England in terms of income and employment. Southend's unemployment rate stands at 4.2 per cent, which compares unfavourably with the east of England average of 2.1 per cent. and a United Kingdom average of 3.2 per cent.
	The problems, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, are rooted in structural weaknesses in the Southend economy—principally its overdependence on tourism, fishing and certain types of financial and business services, which are all in decline. Recent plans to redevelop Southend's former gasworks site by building a 15-bedroom hotel and houses have been axed, and a local manufacturer has announced the redundancies of 33 people.
	I should, however, like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Southend-on-Sea council and other local and regional agencies—the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the individuals involved who deserve credit—for tackling the problems with exemplary vigour and imagination. I congratulate the council on its successful campaigns for some Southend wards to be included in the east of England objective 2 programme—I recognise the resentment that some feel when their wards are not included in a funding area—and for the whole of Southend to be included in the Thames gateway, which has been extended to include south-east Essex and which will be an important driver for the regeneration of the area.
	The objective 2 programme provides a tremendous opportunity for Southend and other needy areas in east England. Over the seven years from January 2000 to December 2006, almost £100 million of European grants will be available to objective 2 areas in the east of England, supporting projects to the value of more than £260 million.
	Southend-on-Sea council and its partners have come together in a local area group for the Southend-on-Sea objective 2 area, which will oversee the preparation and submission of bids. The partnership's vision is that, by the end of the objective 2 programme, Southend-on-Sea will be known throughout the east of England and beyond as a vibrant and different area that is an attractive place in which to live, work, shop and spend time and—hopefully—money.
	The partnership has already bid successfully for its first major objective 2 project: a £17 million Southend sea front, high street and pier-enhancement project. That will be supported by a £5.4 million grant from the European regional development fund. The project will transform the appearance of the town's central corridor, from the gateway entrance in Prittlewell through the high street and along the 2 km pier, which is being restored following the disastrous fire of a few years ago.
	Works to be undertaken as part of the project include a heritage trail, cycle paths, the creation of a series of themed quarters in the high street and the removal and replacement of unsightly and out-dated features. Southend is already visited by 1.6 million people a year. The aim of the project is to increase that number substantially, and I am sure that it will have the hon. Gentleman's strong support.
	Two other major bids are at an advanced stage of preparation. The first is the Milton "investment in learning" project, which will provide community facilities on the new South East Essex college campus in Milton, with the aim of stimulating demand for learning and skills development and delivering business support to local enterprises. The second is the "advance, learn and live" project of the Southend Association of Voluntary Services, which will provide additional facilities for the association's centre in Alexandra street, offering volunteering and training opportunities to people who feel disengaged and marginalised, including the long-term unemployed. As the hon. Gentleman said, Southend also benefits from objective 3 funding which has made a significant contribution to the local economy in a number of ways, through projects totalling £812,151.
	The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the problems of the fishing industry. I shall now address that and discuss the details of the project about which he is particularly concerned. The coastal area around Southend was designated as a PESCA area under the previous European Union community initiative programme—the hon. Gentleman might be familiar with PESCA, which I am told is not an acronym. In addition to the nationally acclaimed cockling industry based in Leigh-on-Sea, the area is known for its stocks of a wide range of fish and shellfish subject to the EU quota system. Local fish merchants, supermarkets and restaurants purchase some of the catch, but the vast majority of locally caught fish is exported.
	The fishing grounds of the Thames estuary are under considerable pressure as a result of EU restrictions. Within the area, the number of fishermen has declined and the retail price of fish has increased, to the disadvantage of the consumer. Fish farming and, more recently, genetically modified fish have affected consumer confidence. I am aware that the fishing industry has been suffering serious decline. One positive outcome, however, is the way in which fishermen have pooled their resources and expertise in a partnership approach to tackling the issues that they face and the challenges facing the industry. The fishing community has considered how to embrace new technology, new ideas and innovative ways to diversify and compete in today's market, and to maintain the skills that have been passed down the generations.
	The fish restocking project is a good example of that. It has been discussed and developed during the past 18 months, with the support of the hon. Gentleman. It is regarded as an innovative project that would address the issues of fish stocks. It involves removing the eggs from caught fish, allowing the larvae to grow in controlled conditions and releasing the juveniles back into the water, so helping to provide adequate fish stocks for local fishermen to catch. The project also offers an opportunity for scientific research into the development of fish larvae, tagging of young fish and measuring their rate of growth, the distance they travel and the number that are subsequently caught in local waters.
	The fish restocking project will increase the number of harvestable fish in the area and enhance opportunities for fishermen to make a living in a way that does not involve GM fish or fish farming. It will also enable complementary industries to prosper, including marine engineering and transportation. In addition, the scientific research associated with the project has educational and tourism potential, and it will enhance the town's image. Once the immediate target of increasing stocks of Dover sole has been met, there is a prospect of turning to turbot and lobster.
	Discussions have taken place between the fish restocking project partnership and officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They have identified a question about the project's eligibility for the financial instrument for fisheries guidance scheme: the nub of the issue is whether the project constitutes aquaculture, which is excluded from the scheme. DEFRA officials understand the issues and are working hard to resolve them in the near future. I know that they have been supportive in pointing out issues relating to eligibility and have identified areas where more information is needed for a bid. I understand that the project partners decided not to submit a bid in June as a result of those problems, but I strongly encourage them to continue discussions with DEFRA and to explore fully flexibilities in the scheme. The next round of bidding will close at the end of September this year, which allows time for partners to discuss issues and to submit a formal bid. I assure the hon. Gentleman that DEFRA will do all that it can to help them in the bid process. It is also sensible for those concerned with the project to consider alternative avenues and sources of funding by, for example, talking to the East of England development agency.
	Despite the problems with that project, there is good news about the regeneration of Southend. Plans to renovate and improve Southend pier were unveiled in May and a new pier entrance should be ready in June 2002. A £2 million programme to re-deck the fire- damaged pier head should be finished by December 2002. There are two major developments at Shoeburyness, which is at the eastern periphery of the borough, both of which are former Ministry of Defence ranges and are considered crucial to the regeneration of the area. One development, at Shoeburyness garrison, will result in 600 jobs as the result of the creation of a mini-town comprising 465 new homes, a school, shops, leisure centre and health centre. Moreover, 150 new jobs were created by London Clubs International, which opened a new Casino at the Kursal building earlier this year.
	We are taking action to improve local transport for Southend. Communications are good; the A127 and A13 trunk roads link Southend to the national motorway network via the M25, which is 20 minutes' drive from the town. However, both trunk roads are overloaded and we are contributing £14.5 million to the borough council's scheme to improve passenger transport and reduce congestion on the A13 and A127. In addition, Southend received an increase in transport block funding of £4.6 million for 2001-02, against funding of £2.3 million in the previous financial year.
	Southend is now receiving funding under the fifth and sixth rounds of the singe regeneration budget programme. In the fifth round, Southend received more than £1.8 million of SRB money for a £3.758 million seven-year scheme that is aimed at identifying and developing solutions for the deprived wards of Milton, Victoria and St. Luke's. Projects include a community information and learning centre; improving educational attainment and health awareness; and addressing the needs of minority and vulnerable groups. In the sixth round, Southend received £3.75 million of SRB money for a £27 million seven-year scheme aimed at providing information on learning, education and skills through community capacity building and community renewal projects and a mental health project.
	Those were substantial amounts of money from a wide variety of sources, both from the Government and Europe. I am sure that they will greatly enhance the regeneration of all of Southend which, of course, will benefit all its constituents. The hon. Gentleman can take much comfort from the fact that his constituents are getting a large slice of regeneration funds, even though there are difficulties with the project in which he has a particular interest. Clearly, it is an emotive subject because of the area's traditional connections with the fishing industry.
	However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken note of his comments on the problems for the fishermen at Southend, specifically the fish restocking project. I know that Southend is in receipt of large amounts of regeneration funding, which should have a huge impact on the area. Once again, I should like to take the opportunity to encourage the project partners to work with DEFRA officials on a bid for September. I assure the House that the Government office for the east of England is well aware of the difficulties surrounding the project and of the hon. Gentleman's interest in it; it will work with partners to ensure that all of Southend can make best use of the opportunities offered it by the funding and initiatives that I have mentioned.
	In conclusion, I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this subject. I am sure that, with his skilled advocacy on behalf of his constituency and town, Southend will truly realise its full potential.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.